NEWS ANALYSIS : Leadership Styles Take Spotlight From Issues : Presidency: Three contenders focus on temperament and background rather than on policies and ideology.

In the Oval Office, does the nation need an experienced manager, a policy-oriented reformer or a take-charge leader?

On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, that question has been overshadowing disputes about ideology and issues in the crystallizing debate between President Bush, Democrat Bill Clinton and likely independent candidate Ross Perot.

Although Clinton has offered detailed positions on dozens of issues and the Bush reelection team has kindled a debate about “family values,” the three contenders are drawing the sharpest lines over whose temperament and background best suits them for the presidency, strategists for each camp say.

In effect, the three men are competing to frame the election not only as a choice between different policies, but different components of leadership--with Bush stressing experience, Clinton mastery of policy and Perot a commitment to action.

“They are battling over the definition of leadership,” says Republican pollster Bill McInturff.

This struggle to define the characteristics voters should prize may be one of the pivots in the race, especially for Bush. With voters distressed about the economy and fearful about the nation’s future, even some GOP insiders concede that the President’s best hope may lie in persuading voters that both of his foes are too risky to trust with executive power.

“He has to make the case . . . that putting Perot or Clinton next to the nuclear button is a far too risky thing to do, regardless of the country’s other problems,” says one conservative activist with close ties to the White House.

As suggested by the recent firefight between the White House and Perot over the Texas billionaire’s methods of dealing with those who cross him, that focus could make for an intensely personal--and nasty--campaign.

“That’s what it is going to be,” says Stuart Rothenberg, editor of a political newsletter in Washington. “Because each of the three candidates believe the fundamental weakness of the other two is over character, personality and leadership.”

Each of the three contenders is offering distinctive job descriptions for the Oval Office that seek to highlight their strengths and the weaknesses of their opponents.

Clinton, who released a blizzard of position papers during his march to the nomination, has argued that the nation needs a chief executive with a detailed plan for economic and social reform, as well as a record of reform in the public sector. “I’ve offered a plan to . . . end the gridlock and move this economy forward,” Clinton declared recently. “I think everybody who wants to be President ought to have that same responsibility.”

Perot, who continues to avoid offering specific responses to many problems, maintains the key to success is not a precise road map but a commitment to change--and independence from the conventional wisdom in both political parties. “We’ve got plans all over this country,” he said recently. “What we need is some action.”

Bush, facing accusations from both opponents of not providing leadership on domestic problems, maintains the indispensable requirement for a President is the ability to respond to a crisis. In effect, Bush is selling himself as a rock of stability.

“I think in the final analysis, people are going to say, ‘Who has the experience, who has the temperament to take on these big problems day in and day out,’ ” he said recently. “Not that I’m perfect, but . . . I’ve got a proven record of being tested by fire. . . .”

These clashing visions have produced some of the campaign’s most incendiary moments. For the past several weeks, the GOP has argued that Perot is too unsteady and untested to be trusted with the nation’s top job--prompting a fierce counterattack from the industrialist, who accused the Republicans of “dirty tricks.”

At the same time, GOP leaders are beginning to suggest that Clinton lacks sufficient experience--or a record as Arkansas’ governor--that shows he is ready for the big time. They are also trying to portray him as a chameleon whose campaign promises on issues such as the environment aren’t supported by his record back home.

Moreover, many observers believe the White House is attempting to reinforce public doubts about Clinton’s personal morality and veracity by constantly identifying Bush with “family values.”

With these jabs at Perot and Clinton, observers in all camps say, the GOP hopes to force voters to think about who they want picking up the receiver when “the phone rings” in the middle of the night in the Oval Office, as Bush put it.

“Americans want somebody (as President) who has experience, maturity, judgment and stability,” says Charles Black, a senior adviser to the Bush campaign. “When people vote for President, they don’t like to take a risk on someone they think might not be able to do the job.”

Bush’s opponents hope that the end of the Cold War has lowered the threshold they must pass to persuade voters they can be trusted as commander-in-chief. And they are aggressively challenging Bush’s claim to leadership in ways that underscore their own strongest points.

Perot, the businessman, regularly bashes the President as an absentee manager. He criticizes Bush for not taking responsibility on issues ranging from the savings-and-loan debacle to the Iran-Contra affair. With this criticism, Perot implicitly underlines his own image as a take-charge leader willing to do whatever it requires to get things done.

Clinton has presented a more cerebral critique. He has spent far less time attacking Bush over individual issues than claiming that Bush lacks the vision to craft an economic strategy for the 1990s. That charge speaks to what Clinton aides see as one of his greatest strengths: a detailed, interwoven agenda of proposals on economic and social issues.

Less developed are the personal distinctions Perot and Clinton will draw with each other--if and when either side feels it necessary. The Democrat has offered some hints, suggesting that he would have a better chance of reforming government than Perot because his long experience inside government has given him a better understanding of how it works.

So far, this focus on leadership qualities has virtually preempted the ideological debates that dominated the past two presidential campaigns. But the GOP is signaling that it hopes to increase the ideological content of the race.

Following a strategy that proved enormously successful for Bush four years ago, Republican leaders are stepping up their efforts to paint his rivals as closet liberals hiding their true beliefs. On Tuesday, former Delaware Gov. Pierre S. (Pete) du Pont IV wrote an opinion article in the New York Times portraying Perot as a fan of “big government” with left-leaning views on industrial policy, trade and taxes.

Clinton received a sharper dose of the same treatment this week, with Republicans taking aim at his Arkansas record, his economic plan and his relationship with Democratic constituencies.

On Monday, Massachusetts Gov. William F. Weld--a pro-abortion rights government reformer whose views on some issues are closer to those of Clinton than Bush--flew to Little Rock to condemn the Arkansas governor as a tax-and-spend Democrat who may be soft on crime.

That same day, Education Secretary Lamar Alexander charged Clinton was under the “control” of the National Education Assn., the nation’s largest teachers’ union.

Bush strategists promise more of the same over the next few months. Today, only about one-fifth of Americans see Clinton as “too liberal” according to one recent survey; GOP strategist Black says he “guarantees” that percentage will dramatically increase before Election Day.

In return, Clinton seems certain to continue playing the populist notes he sounded during the primaries in an effort to identify Bush (and perhaps eventually Perot) with the wealthy, while claiming for himself the mantle of the middle class.

But many observers believe that in 1992 such ideological and populist positioning may be less important than in the past and secondary to the debate over leadership qualities.

Part of the reason is that Bush has generally sought consensus--not polarization--and thus defused issues that might have been flash points in the presidential campaign. For instance, by signing the Civil Rights Act that overturned recent Supreme Court rulings weakening affirmative action and by abandoning his no-new-taxes pledge, Bush may have taken the edge off two of the most divisive issues in American politics.

Also, the overwhelming focus on the economy means the election will be fought primarily on turf that voters view in pragmatic terms rather than as a contest between liberal and conservative ideas. With voters seemingly eager for any plan that offers the promise of lasting recovery, “the economy is no longer an ideological issue,” says Chuck Rund, a Republican pollster based in San Francisco.

Perhaps most importantly, both Perot and Clinton are ideological hybrids who blend conservative themes, particularly on social values, with liberal goals and a belief in an activist government.

Even while calling for greater government involvement in the economy, for example, both men support the death penalty and requirements that minors notify their parents or another adult before obtaining an abortion. Since both Clinton and Perot are sending such complex signals, neither may be as easy for the GOP to pigeonhole on the left as the culturally liberal Michael S. Dukakis was four years ago, says Rothenberg.

As a result, the most bruising clashes between the three contenders may continue to revolve around who has the right stuff to lead the nation through the 1990s.

“I think the fall debate will be about leadership and who can break the gridlock in Washington,” says Tom Luce, the chairman of the Perot campaign.

Tumbling Turnout

A shrinking slice of Americans is determining the outcome of presidential primaries. A new study by a nonpartisan, nonprofit research group in Washington found that the percentage of voting-age Americans who cast ballots in states in which both parties held primaries was 20.9--the lowest since the contests became the dominant factor in the nomination process in 1972. Compared to four years ago, the biggest decline occurred among Democrats--turnout in the party’s comparable primaries dropped by 16% between 1988 and 1992. Republican turnout dipped by only 0.7%. Record low turnouts were recorded in 11 states, including California. NATIONAL TREND* 1972: 29.52% 1976: 28.31% 1980: 24.82% 1984: 22.42% 1988: 24.25% 1992: 20.90% * Excludes states that had primaries in only one party CALIFORNIA NUMBERS IN ’92 Voting-age population: 22,668,000 Total primary voters: 5,557,459 Percentage turnout of voting-age population, 1992: 24.52 Percentage turnout of voting-age population, 1972: 43.24 Source: Committee for the Study of the American Electorate