COLUMN RIGHT : Why the Fuss About Quayle? He’s Doing OK : So what if he cares more about golf than governing? In a crunch, he’d be competent.

The words “atrial fibrillation” were scarcely on our lips, and George Bush barely settled into the Bethesda Naval Hospital, when “the Quayle factor” popped up in the headlines. The President’s heart problem unexpectedly put the vice president on probation. Without warning, his qualifications were again up for review.

In certain liberal quarters one even detected an uncharacteristic solicitousness for the President’s health. There were suggestions that he might consider reining in his hectic schedule, take it easy for a while--anything rather than put us at risk of a Quayle presidency.

Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas, described in one account as “a possible presidential contender” lost no time in launching an attack on the vice president, at the same time appealing for prayers for Bush. Meanwhile, Republicans in Washington were reported to be speaking “in the lowest of murmurs” about the vice president, implying the hatching of plots offstage.

For decades, of course, vice presidents have received unflattering notices. Perhaps there is something about the job itself that makes its holders seem smaller than life and unqualified for promotion. Nonetheless, Dan Quayle has received more than his fair share of abuse, and this campaign of disparagement has often been mean-spirited. He is, I believe, perfectly well-qualified to be President.

He is certainly more intelligent than is generally assumed, as I found out when I was assigned to interview him a couple of years ago. He had been vice president for two months, and I was granted an hour’s audience in the West Wing. My task was to discern the extent of his commitment to conservative ideas. Piece of cake, I thought, but as I left the White House I realized that he had maneuvered his way through the conversation quite deftly.

He made forthright statements on issues that (in retrospect) were not very controversial (the trustworthiness of the Soviet Union, the merit of communism), but at other times he gave carefully qualified, even guarded answers. (On national security, for example, he said he was “considered” to be a hard-liner, leaving unresolved the question whether he really was one or not.) In the end he easily ran out the clock with soothing speeches on issues too tedious to describe. (When he brought up the Job Training Partnership Act, I knew it was time to throw in the towel.)

On balance, I suspect that Quayle is fairly conservative--certainly more so than his boss. But his conservatism tends to be of the type that accepts high domestic spending in exchange for high military spending. Quayle’s aides are mostly young neo-conservatives who (unusually for Republicans) are alert enough to know what their opponents are up to.

Quayle’s own youth is another point in his favor. For years, the great problem with the Republican Party has been its domination by men for whom the Depression and World War II were not merely formative but overpowering influences. They have believed that a large, activist government is something that cannot really be opposed by people of goodwill. In short they are Democrats at heart, with the reservation that big business, too, should get a helping hand from Washington.

Quayle does not share the can-do enthusiasm for limitless government enterprise that is so characteristic of George Bush’s generation. Several observers have noted that at times he has seemed remarkably uninterested in the whole project of governing. Several years ago he told political scientist Richard Fenno that when he was a congressman from Indiana, he was “very bored in the House.” Being a Republican there was “an awful job,” he added. When Bush picked him as his running mate, there were hints that he had been planning to quit the Senate at the end of his term.

If he remains not much interested in the fine print of social policy (as I suspect), and at some point does becomes President, he would probably end up disappointing those who think we are overgoverned. The reason is that cutting back government is obviously the unsolved conundrum of our age, bitterly resisted by the recipient classes, and if it is to be achieved it will require the full-time attention of someone (Margaret Thatcher comes to mind) who is singlemindedly committed to the task.

One only has to mention such qualities to appreciate that Dan Quayle doesn’t have them and never will. My recollection of our interview is that he spoke rather more affectionately of the Paradise Valley golf course in Phoenix than he did about reducing the level of government regulation and taxation. In fact, one wonders why the liberals seem so hostile to him. He’s a genial, serenely self-confident man who no doubt would do a perfectly competent job in the Oval Office. But who would be most unlikely to try to upset the existing order.