1988 CAMPAIGN : New Rules For The Old Race

Here are five reasons why George Bush cannot be elected President:

1) Bush is a sitting vice president. No sitting vice president has been elected President in 150 years. Being vice president is a great way to get your party’s presidential nomination. The Republicans nominated Richard M. Nixon in 1960; the Democrats nominated Hubert H. Humphrey in 1968 and Walter F. Mondale in 1984. And they all lost. The vice presidency did to Bush what it always does to people who hold that office. It turned him into a wimp.

2) Bush was born to wealth and privilege. That confirms the most damaging stereotype about the GOP. Democrats can get away with nominating a Franklin D. Roosevelt or a John F. Kennedy. But Republicans have not dared to nominate a genuine aristocrat since 1912.

3) Bush is at the wrong end of the election cycle. After a party has been in power for eight years, the voters want a change. With no elected incumbent on the ballot, the contest is usually close and the party out of power wins. That happened in 1960, 1968 and 1976.

4) Bush has exercised bad judgment time and again. He toasted Ferdinand E. Marcos’ commitment to democracy. He put Gen. Manuel A. Noriega on the Central Intelligence Agency payroll. He gave President Reagan terrible advice in the Iran-Contra affair. “But what has he done recently?” you may ask. He chose Sen. Dan Quayle of Indiana as his running mate. In all his years in public life, as congressman, Republican Party chairman, liaison officer to China, director of the CIA, ambassador to the United Nations and vice president of the United States, what has Bush ever accomplished on his own initiative? Nothing. How’s that for a record?

5) Bush is defying trends in public opinion. For the last four years, public opinion has been moving in a more liberal direction. More people want to do something about poverty, homelessness, hunger and pollution. The public is enthusiastic about arms control and detente with the Soviet Union. When asked what should be done to reduce the federal budget deficit, people’s first choice is to cut military spending. Ever since Reagan’s reelection in 1984, conservatism has been on the decline.

So there it is. Proof positive that Bush can’t win. And by the way, the earth is flat. Elvis is alive. And I’m Queen Marie of Romania.

The fact is, unless something unexpected happens in the next two days--say, Barbara Bush runs off with Eddie Fisher--Bush is likely to be elected President. And get this: Quayle is likely to be elected vice president. “In your face!” as Bush has probably not said but soon will.

How did this happen? When the experts look back on the 1988 campaign, as they have been trying to do for the last month, they will reach one inescapable conclusion. Negative campaigns work.

There you have it. The lesson of 1988. And rest assured, if Bush wins, we will be seeing more and more negative campaigns in the years to come. Until someone comes along and proves conclusively that negative campaigns don’t work.

Politicians, like generals, are always fighting the last war. In 1976, for example, they learned the momentum principle. It went like this: If you want to win your party’s nomination, do what Jimmy Carter did. Spend all your time and money in Iowa, win the Iowa caucuses and then rely on the news media to carry you through the rest of the campaign.

This year, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) and Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) spent all their time and money in Iowa. They won the Iowa caucuses. And they got exactly nowhere. So 1988 has proved conclusively that the momentum principle doesn’t work. The momentum cliche has been replaced by the marathon cliche. If you want to win your party’s nomination, do what Michael S. Dukakis did. Raise vast quantities of money so that you can run everywhere and survive the inevitable setbacks.

As Jerry Austin, Jesse Jackson’s campaign manager, described it, the marathon model is simple. “Your strategy to win the nomination is to have 10 million bucks in the bank before a single vote is cast--and to be the last white guy standing.”

Dukakis’ marathon strategy made him a sitting duck for the Republicans. He assumed that he could run against Bush the same way he ran against Jackson: Just keep going until the other guy collapses.

Bush knew that if the 1988 election was a referendum on himself, he would lose (see items 1 through 5 above). So he turned it into a referendum on Dukakis.

Bush’s strategy was to portray Dukakis as a risk. He used the Pledge of Allegiance issue and the “tank commercial” to make the point that Dukakis was weak on defense (with, perhaps, the subliminal message that a son of Greek immigrants was not a real American). He used the ACLU issue and the prisoner-furlough ad to make the point that Dukakis was soft on crime (with, perhaps, a subliminal appeal to white racism). All of these commercials ended with the tag line, “America can’t afford that risk.” How did Dukakis respond? By doing nothing. Which confirmed what Bush was saying: “I’m not the wimp. He’s the wimp.”

A lot of people are wondering why the candidates never talked about the issues. Here’s why: The voters didn’t want to hear it. According to the polls, there was only one big issue on the national agenda--the federal budget deficit. Neither of the candidates had much to say about it. Bush supports a “flexible freeze” on federal spending, while Dukakis promises to crack down on tax cheaters. But seriously, folks, don’t the people want to know more about what each candidate would do to get us out of this mess?

No. Mondale ran on the deficit issue in 1984. This year, Dole claimed the deficit as his issue. He said he would work with Congress to get a deficit-reduction plan on track. “Eek!” said Republicans. “Those guys are Democrats. You’ll end up raising taxes!” On the Democratic side, former Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt talked about applying a means test to federal benefits. He said that federal money should only be given to people who need it. “Yikes!” said Democrats. “This guy’s a radical!” Bush and Dukakis must be aware that the deficit is the issue that got Mondale, Dole and Babbitt where they are today.

To be fair, voters do take the deficit seriously. They would like to believe the next President will take it seriously too. They hope he will exercise good judgment and figure out a solution that won’t be too painful or take too many risks with the economy. But, they plead, please don’t tell us in advance what you’re planning to do.

It’s the same situation Nixon was in when he got elected in 1968. His mandate was to end the Vietnam War. The voters didn’t care how he did it--he could be a dove or a hawk or, as it turned out, a little of both. The voters said, “Just do it. We’ll let you know whether it worked.”

The experts are going to draw another conclusion about the 1988 campaign: Peace and prosperity work. In fact, that’s the real lesson of 1988. The main reason Bush’s negative campaign succeeded is that the country is enjoying peace and prosperity. Bush argued that to elect Dukakis would be to put that peace and prosperity at risk. Dukakis had to make a more complicated argument. He had to argue that the country is headed for trouble and the real risk would be to vote for the status quo.

There is plenty of evidence that the voters are apprehensive about the future. So why didn’t Dukakis’ strategy work? Look at how the two candidates approached the “middle-class squeeze” issue. Dukakis says to middle-class voters, “You’ve got a problem, we’ve got a program.” He has a program to take care of college tuition costs, a program to help with child-care expenses, a program to provide health insurance for all employees and a program to encourage affordable home mortgages. These are all cleverly designed to be “self-financing.”

What Bush says to middle-class voters is, “You’re in a financial squeeze? Here’s what we’re going to do for you. We’re going to keep the recovery going.” Middle-class voters know that government programs are going to end up costing them money and helping somebody else. The solution middle-class voters want isn’t programs. It’s prosperity.

The other day, Bush promised he would be “an activist President.” But he didn’t mean the same thing Democrats mean when they talk about government activism. Bush said that his economic policy would be “to see that the economy isn’t tied to the old business cycle, but breaks free, so the boom isn’t followed by bust but is more like rolling thunder.” He promised to repeal the business cycle! How’s that for activism?

If Bush is elected, he will have a clear mandate. It will be: Keep the recovery going. If he does, he’ll be a fine President. If he doesn’t, he’ll be in big trouble.

Meanwhile, Dukakis is frantically doing what Democrats always do when their back is against the wall. He is using economic populism to rally the Democratic base. Mr. Competence has become Mr. “I’m-On-Your-Side.” Dukakis is railing against corporate greed, foreign competition and Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich.” It worked for Harry S. Truman in 1948. It almost worked for Humphrey in 1968. Could it work for Dukakis in 1988?

Not likely. The constituency for that message has grown smaller and smaller over the last 40 years. More Americans identify as taxpayers and fewer as beneficiaries of government spending. The Democratic Party’s base has shrunk.

Nonetheless, Dukakis may succeed in narrowing the GOP margin. If he does, he will go down to glorious defeat rather than humiliating defeat. A lot of Democrats will see a lesson in that outcome. “You see,” they will say. “If Dukakis had done this a little earlier and run as a real liberal, he could have turned the election around.” Like Mondale, perhaps.

There is one more thing to be learned from the 1988 campaign. Dukakis is a lawyer. He thinks like a lawyer. He takes international law and international organizations seriously. When asked about emotional issues like the Pledge of Allegiance and furloughs, he gives legal answers. The Democrats have nominated “L.A. Law’s” Stuart Markowitz for President. Only this one doesn’t know about “the Venus butterfly.”

The message of 1988 is: Campaigns should not be run by lawyers. And if the voters do what it looks like they will do on Tuesday, the message will be even clearer: The country should not be run by lawyers.