‘Throw the Bums Out’: Primary Voters Intent on Rejecting Dukakis : Primary: The Massachusetts governor is defeated twice in the state’s primary--and he didn’t even run. Can it be a Bush realignment?

George Bush beat Michael S. Dukakis for the second time last week. Only this time, he did it here in Massachusetts, Dukakis’ home state. In a outpouring of anger against Dukakis, the voters of Massachusetts turned out in record numbers in Tuesday’s primary to nominate two candidates for governor--both of whom voted for Bush in 1988.

Dukakis also accomplished something impossible last week. He brought the Massachusetts GOP back to life. Massachusetts Republicans are a sad collection of nerdy libertarians, resentful white ethnics and Yankee eccentrics--like Supreme Court nominee David H. Souter from neighboring New Hampshire. The party was in serious danger of extinction--13.4% of the state’s voters are registered Republicans. Now the GOP has a good chance of winning the governorship for the first time in 20 years. And maybe, with the help of a radical tax rollback initiative on the ballot, they could win a good deal more.

Dukakis now rivals Richard M. Nixon as the most hated man in U.S. politics. In 1988, the Democrats had their best chance to win the presidency in 20 years. And Dukakis blew it.

Massachusetts voters are angry, not just because the state’s economy is a disaster, but because they feel betrayed. Dukakis ran for President as the genius behind the “Massachusetts miracle.” But the whole thing started to fall apart even before the 1988 campaign was over. It was all a lie, and the voters of Massachusetts mean to have their revenge.

According to the exit polls, precisely 6% of Democratic voters in the Massachusetts primary described themselves as admirers of Dukakis. No politician has fallen this far, this fast, since Nicolae Ceausescu, the late dictator of Romania.

The message to incumbents in Massachusetts last week was: “Up against the wall.” With one exception, every statewide candidate who carried the official party endorsement lost the primary. Both contests for governor produced dramatic upsets. Outsiders who had never been elected to public office defeated heavily favored insiders.

The Democrats nominated John R. Silber, the outspoken and controversial president of Boston University. Actually, the Democrats didn’t nominate Silber. Registered Democrats voted 3 to 2 against him. But Independents are allowed to vote in Massachusetts primaries. Independents made up more than 40% of the Democratic primary voters on Tuesday, and two-thirds voted for Silber.

Silber, who has been called the Andrew Dice Clay of Massachusetts politics, specializes in saying things that drive liberals crazy. He said that recent Democratic presidential candidates, including Dukakis, were guilty of “knee-jerk capitulation to people who would sell out America.” He described Massachusetts as a “welfare magnet” for immigrants. He said when an unwed welfare mother has a second child, the state should cut off her public assistance and place the child in a foster home.

Silber’s arrogance is legendary. He once defended his $275,000 annual salary --the highest of any university president in the country--by saying, “I’m not average.” Former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, who knows a thing or two about arrogance, had this to say about Silber, having served with him on a commission: “He considered me nearly an equal, which is about as much as you can achieve.”

Silber insulted Jesse Jackson by comparing his speaking style to Hitler’s. He insulted Jews by saying, “The racism of Jews is quite phenomenal.” He insulted old people by proposing to ration health care for the elderly, saying, “When you’ve had a long life and you’re ripe, then it’s time to go.” He insulted feminists by saying he could never appoint someone like Gloria Steinem as a judge. Generally pro-choice, Silber once wrote “abortion is homicide,” and he supports some restrictions on abortion rights.

The final straw seemed to come in a debate one week before the primary, when Silber was asked why he had never delivered a speech about crime in a black neighborhood. Silber replied, “There is no point in my making a speech on crime to a bunch of addicts.”

The press and the pundits wrote him off. In a liberal party in a liberal state, he had offended one too many liberal pieties.

But the people didn’t write him off. They found his candor refreshing. “I don’t speak plastic like other politicians,” Silber said. He got a good many votes from the people he supposedly offended. Silber got 56% of the elderly vote, 45% of the women’s vote, 42% of the Jewish vote and 31% of the black vote. Maybe they weren’t offended. Maybe they thought he was speaking the truth.

The voter rebellion was not confined to the Democratic Party. Massachusetts Republicans also overthrew the front-runner in their gubernatorial primary. Instead, they nominated William F. Weld, an independently wealthy and impeccably well-bred Yankee ( summa cum laude , Harvard). Weld had a strong anti-corruption record as U.S. attorney. He drew headlines in 1988 when he resigned his position as assistant U.S. attorney general to protest Edwin Meese III’s involvement in the Wedtech scandal.

In fact, last week’s voter rebellion was not confined to Massachusetts. Oklahoma Republicans also nominated a crusading U.S. attorney with a strong anti-corruption record for governor. The Democrats rejected an incumbent congressman and nominated a business executive who ran on an anti-government platform.

Oklahoma voters went even further and became the first state to impose a term limit on legislators. By 2 to 1, Oklahomans passed a constitutional amendment limiting state lawmakers to 12 years in office. Similar term-limitation measures are on the ballot this November in California and Colorado.

This sort of anti-incumbent tide is exactly what Republicans have been praying for. Republicans have never gotten far by running partisan campaigns in midterm years. What they have to do is run against the whole system--Congress, the Establishment, the status quo. Sure, some incumbents are Republicans, and they might get swept away by the tide of dissatisfaction. But Congress is controlled by Democrats, and most state governments are controlled by Democrats. It’s a scorched-earth strategy: If you can’t take over the institution, burn it down.

It’s a feasible strategy for the GOP only in midterm years--when the Republicans don’t have to defend an incumbent President. It’s also a brilliant way to divert attention from the recession. When the economy is lousy, people are supposed to vote Democratic. The Republicans have a different answer: “Throw the bums out!”

What Massachusetts Republicans did was also brilliant. They turned themselves into a viable opposition party. They rejected a right-winger who could never have gotten elected and chose Weld, an outsider with a far more appealing ideological profile. Weld is strongly anti-tax and just as strongly pro-choice.

Because of his liberal positions on social issues, some Republicans are saying Weld is not a real Republican. That doesn’t seem to bother Bush, who will campaign for him. “The President is enough of a politician to know that this is the political opportunity of a lifetime,” a White House staffer said.

Massachusetts liberals are in anguish. After all, Massachusetts is the liberal motherland--the Kennedys, two gay congressmen, the only state to go for George McGovern in 1972. They say Silber is not a real Democrat. Silber doesn’t agree. He says he is “a traditional liberal Democrat.”

What that means is that he is more liberal on economic issues than social issues. His personal hero is Hubert H. Humphrey. Silber calls for state-funded preschool programs for all Massachusetts children. And he opposes the tax-cut initiative on the November ballot.

Democrats used to win elections by nominating candidates like Silber, who were economically liberal and socially conservative. They got a solid working-class vote. Conversely, when the Republicans were economically conservative and socially liberal, they usually lost. Too elitist.

But the country has changed since the New Deal. Most Americans now live in suburbs. The huge baby-boom generation has come of age. And no candidate personifies the suburban yuppie more than Weld.

According to the Massachusetts exit polls, Weld is acceptable to those who supported the losing GOP and Democratic candidates. Silber is not. Two-thirds of those who voted against Silber said they would “definitely not” vote for him in November, no matter what.

Everyone expected a Reagan realignment in U.S. politics. It never happened. Could there be a Bush realignment? Weld is the perfect test. First he defeats the right wing of the GOP. Then he defeats the Democrats on a wave of anti-tax, pro-choice sentiment.

And the ultimate irony: It happens first in Dukakis’ Massachusetts.