Down for the Count? : This election could still be a contender : Politics of the Me Generation

Politics without posturing would be like baseball without spitting, but even so, for many Democrats the hand-wringing of the party’s potential presidential candidates is veering toward the insufferable.

Judging by public comments, many of the party’s leading figures believe two things passionately: As President, George Bush is failing the country--and someone else should assume the difficult task of trying to unseat him.

Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) says Bush is dangerously dividing the nation along racial lines--but he’s not going to challenge him one on one.

New York Gov. Mario M. Cuomo says Bush has abandoned the cities and ignored crippling domestic problems--but the party doesn’t need him to argue that.

House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) says Bush is allowing the country to slide economically into second-rate status--but he can’t break his promise to colleagues not to run again.

Sen. John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV of West Virginia says Bush has “irrationally adored” the rich (he should know)--but he isn’t ready to name his Cabinet, so he won’t take the chance of being asked to 17 months from now.

All this speaks eloquently to the Democratic skepticism about the party’s chances next fall against Bush, even in an uncertain economy. But it may even more about the debilitating flaw in the basic structure of modern U.S. politics.

As author Alan Ehrenhalt argues in his recent book, “The United States of Ambition,” U.S. politics has undergone a structural decomposition over the past generation. For much of this century, the political parties recruited and vetted candidates at all levels, establishing hierarchy and progression--even drafting presidential nominees, such as Illinois Gov. Adlai E. Stevenson in 1952.

That system had its problems. But the absence of Democratic volunteers this year illuminates the weakness in the atomized political world that has succeeded the parties and the bosses. The system now centers on individuals, who plot their careers unguided by any star other than their own ambition. As Ehrenhalt observes, the answer to the classic political question--Who sent these guys?--is increasingly: They sent themselves.

There are many reasons for this change--crucial among them the rise of television, which has allowed politicians to speak directly to the voters--but the impact has been dramatic. In effect, Ehrenhalt argues, politics today is driven more by the career aspirations of individual politicians than any other factor--whether party loyalty or ideological fervor. We have entered the era of the me-generation in American politics.

That is vividly apparent in the 1992 Democratic presidential race--or lack of one. Each of the prominent Democrats deferring has his personal reasons for not running--many of them valid. But it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that high on their list is the unspoken conclusion that challenging a popular incumbent this year simply doesn’t fit into their personal timetable. When they’re ready to be President, they’ll let us know.

That sounds like modesty, but from another angle it looks like a form of vanity--one that elevates a sense of personal destiny above all other considerations. Is it naive to argue that party leaders such as Cuomo, Bradley, and Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell of Maine have an obligation to step from the sidelines if they believe Bush is as misguided as they say? Even an unsuccessful race could raise issues now submerged and force Bush to confront domestic problems Democrats maintain he has slighted.

If the national interest is not enough, how about partisan considerations? Though several of those exploring the race are thoughtful and articulate--liberal Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin or centrist Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton could kindle an enlightening debate over the party’s direction--Democrats face the prospect of assembling a field so sparse and obscure that it may be written off from the start.

As the clock ticks, the Democrats are locked in a downward spiral--with practical considerations reinforcing the political caution. By waiting so long, those considering running have left themselves too little time to build a national campaign. When Rockefeller announced his withdrawal, he noted almost wistfully that, had he started planning a year earlier, he might have reached a different decision. Clinton and Harkin seem inclined to run--but both camps caution that an inability to raise sufficient funds might cause them to stay home.

Even if created by personal uncertainty, these are real problems. But they shouldn’t be decisive. With the exception of Cuomo and Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr.--also agonizing over whether to run--no one still considering has the potential to raise commanding sums. Both former Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas, the only declared candidate, and Virginia Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, collecting money for an exploratory committee, have found checkbooks tight. In other words, just about everyone in the race will be in the same penurious position.

Similarly, Bush’s formidable position offers an excellent excuse to take a pass on 1992--but hardly qualifies as a reason. Few leading Democrats doubt that the party confronts serious risks next year--extending beyond control of the White House. The success of Ronald Reagan and now Bush at attracting younger voters exposes Democrats to the prospect of losing an entire generation to the GOP. If that sounds extreme, consider this: In national surveys, Democrats lead Republicans in every generation that turned 18 before 1975, and Republicans lead among all who came of age since--in the era of Jimmy Carter, Reagan and Bush.

All those Democrats waiting for 1996 may be preaching to empty pews if they don’t begin to reverse these trends in 1992. The presidential race is the one time parties gain enough of the nation’s attention to make a lasting impression.

As Clinton noted last week, “Nobody has made the alternative case for a long time.” Those taking the chance to articulate it--primarily Clinton, Harkin, Wilder and Tsongas--deserve their party’s ear and admiration. But if they are going to engage the public, they need reinforcements--who might view long-term self-interest as a reason to reconsider, even if nothing else moves them.