NEWS ANALYSIS : Character, Not Economics, Key Issue in N.H.

The 1992 New Hampshire Democratic contest was the campaign that was supposed to be all about issues and ideas. Victory in this recession-ridden state’s primary, most people thought, would go to the candidate with the most convincing agenda of economic remedies.

But the campaign is instead turning on something very different--the vexing questions of character that go to the heart of the American political process, and for which there are no easy answers.

No one is unhappier about this than Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. “For too much of the last couple of weeks this election has been about me,” he complained recently as he watched his once-commanding lead in the polls fade in the wake of unsubstantiated allegations of infidelity and questions about his draft status 22 years ago.

On the other hand, former Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas, the principal beneficiary of Clinton’s decline, has reason to be delighted with the emergence of the character issue. He was praised in a recent Boston Herald editorial for his “decency and strength of character.” In an apparent allusion to Clinton, the Herald added: “At a time when voters are weary of candidates with feet of clay, Paul Tsongas is a man whose integrity is unquestioned.”

All of this should come as no surprise. Despite repeated vows by the media, voters and candidates to pay strict attention to the issues facing the country, recent events in New Hampshire are just the latest demonstration of the dominating effect that questions about character and personality have in shaping the outcome of presidential campaigns.

“Over the last 20 years, we’ve spent a lot of time and resources understanding how people factor out various traits they want to see in a President,” said GOP pollster Richard B. Wirthlin, who helped Ronald Reagan win two terms. “That research clearly points to the fact that you have to have credibility, there has to be a sense of integrity and consistency.”

Also, given the highly personalized nature of the U.S. political system, politicians and scholars alike argue that there is no better way of choosing a candidate for President than by evaluating what kind of human being he or she really is.

“Voters know that the issues a President will have to face will change in time,” said Robert S. Teeter, a GOP pollster and senior campaign strategist for President Bush. “But his character will always be there.”

“Character isn’t everything, but it’s very important,” said Thomas C. Reeves, a University of Wisconsin history professor and author of “A Question of Character,” a critique of John F. Kennedy’s presidency. “The American people expect a President to be not just a political leader, but also a role model of personal behavior.”

Character has always been a major force in American politics. But its significance has increased in recent years as the personal powers of the presidency have increased and as presidents have used television as a highly personalized tool of leadership.

Another factor is the increasing openness of the political system in the last 20 years. As political parties have declined and presidential primaries have proliferated, the media have become power brokers of a sort, partly replacing the old-time party bosses who guarded the channels of political discourse.

“Had we known about Eisenhower’s affair,” said George Mason University analyst Hugh Heclo, referring to President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s reputed wartime liaison with his military secretary, “he might not have been elected.”

“But this is a different political system,” Heclo said. “There is no Establishment which controls information. The whole range of candidate behavior has been opened up, and it’s ridiculous to think you can re-create those days.”

But although nearly everyone agrees that character matters more than ever in politics and governance, disagreement abounds about which aspects of character matter most and which not at all.

Take the case of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Many feel that his legendary personality, which allowed him to inspire the nation and manipulate his political allies and adversaries, had more to do with his success than his often erratic approach to public policy, a judgment reflected by the verdict handed down by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes on his first meeting with F.D.R.: “A second-class intellect but a first-class temperament.”

But for all his character strengths, Roosevelt had some notable defects that only came to light years after his death. He apparently was unfaithful to his wife. He also systematically undercut his boss at the Navy Department--where he served as an assistant secretary during World War I--in his ambition to make a name for himself.

“Had these things been known about him at the time, he probably would not have been elected President,” said Geoffrey Ward, author of “The First-Class Temperament,” a chronicle of F.D.R.’s rise to national prominence. “Now we want to know everything about a politician,” Ward said. And he said he worries that the result “is to reduce all our leaders to the lowest common denominator.”

Not surprisingly, Clinton made much the same point in complaining about the controversy over whether he manipulated his draft status to avoid service in the Vietnam War.

“The real character issue and the real patriotism issue in this election is, who has a vision for the country, a plan for the future and the ability to get it done.” he said.

But some scholars reject Clinton’s attempt to deflect questions about his draft status as self-serving. “That’s a public, not a private, matter,” said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia government professor.

“I’m a member of the Vietnam generation too,” he said. “And there is nothing more important or revealing than the decision each of us made about whether or not to serve.”

As for the unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct against Clinton, which the governor dismisses as irrelevant, Reeves says the significance of such behavior “depends on the facts.”

A single brief fling might not matter, but a prolonged pattern of adultery and deception “could cast a shadow over his character,” according to Reeves, who said he thinks the extravagant sexual activity attributed to President Kennedy might eventually have led to his impeachment if it had come to light during his presidency.

For all the revelations of promiscuity, Kennedy’s character was otherwise marked by a self-discipline drilled into him from childhood by his parents.

That strict upbringing helped Kennedy behave with restraint and humor when he was under pressure as chief executive. At his first meeting with Soviet leader Nikita S. Khrushchev in 1961, he stayed cool despite Khrushchev’s attempt to bully him. Noting the Lenin Peace Medal that Khrushchev wore, Kennedy remarked: “I hope you get to keep it.”

George Mason University’s Heclo argues that in a democracy, there is little choice but to let everything hang on questions of character. “If the people think it’s relevant, then that makes it relevant,” he said.

But Duke University’s James David Barber, author of “The Presidential Character,” contends that “no single episode” reveals much that is relevant to a politician’s fitness to be President. “You have to look at any revelation in the context of the politician’s whole life and of the duties of the President,” he said.

Thus the fact that President Warren G. Harding, who led America into the Roaring ‘20s, had a mistress means little by itself, Barber says. But the mistress’s revelation, made after Harding’s death, that their relationship reflected Harding’s obsessive need for approval and affection might have served as a warning of the scandalous corruption that ultimately engulfed his presidency.

A sterling character is by itself no guarantee of success, as Reeves points out. President Jimmy Carter’s high moral standing helped him win the White House. But his lack of national political experience and his dislike of the give-and-take involved in dealing with congressional leaders of his own party torpedoed his leadership efforts.

One key to successful presidential character is the extent to which a President’s personal traits complement his political beliefs and help him gain the trust and credibility he needs to achieve his goals. Reagan’s mellow outlook and demeanor were a plus, according to Brookings Institution political fellow Bert Rockman, because his “soft and comforting “ manner made his “clear and polarizing” ideological agenda less threatening and more acceptable.

But Reagan’s relaxed and easy manner had a downside. One reason he seemed so relaxed was that he delegated many of the burdens of his office to underlings. This tendency finally caught up with him in the Iran-Contra scandal, after which the Tower Commission, which investigated the affair, concluded that “with such a complex, high-risk operation, the President should have ensured that the (National Security Council) system did not fail him.” Had Reagan exercised more authority, the commission concluded, “the outcome might well have been different.”