LOS ANGELES TIMES INTERVIEW : Theodore Sorensen : Recapturing the Kennedy Euphoria With the Man Who Wrote the Words

As he relaxes in the den of his Manhattan apartment on Central Park West, Theodore C. Sorensen offers strong words about the Democratic Party and the 1992 campaign. But it doesn’t take him long to start reminiscing about another race that still evokes strong memories for millions of Americans.

In 1960, Sorensen was a top aide to Sen. John F. Kennedy, the Democratic candidate for President, and he became one of his most trusted White House advisers and chief speech writer.

Today, he says, the Democrats may be on the verge of recapturing the excitement of Kennedy’s historic campaign. If Gov. Bill Clinton capitalizes on his youth and intelligence, says Sorensen, he could inspire a new generation, and rescue the party from its 12-year presidential tailspin.

Although Sorensen gives Kennedy full credit for his most memorable lines, Sorensen’s elegant, Churchillian prose helped Kennedy convey a stirring political message. The soft-spoken attorney from Nebraska also played an advisory role in some of the crises that confronted the Administration.

Since then, Sorensen has remained a Kennedy loyalist. He helped run Robert F. Kennedy’s 1968 presidential campaign and worked in Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s 1980 race for the presidency, besides assisting other Democratic nominees. He has also written biographies of Kennedy. After a losing bid for the Senate in 1970, Sorensen became a senior partner at the blue-chip law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison.

Married with four children, Sorensen, 64, still looks like the trim aide who stood at the President’s side. Late on a summer evening, the man who knew Jack Kennedy better than most begins to sound like him. He speaks in flowing sentences, pausing for emphasis like a young Boston candidate did 32 years ago. He asserts that the Democrats could again be a potent force in presidential politics. “I’m confident that the party can win a big victory in 1992,” Sorensen says, standing next to a photo of himself with John Kennedy. “I know we’ve had problems. But I think we can do better.”

Question: As the Democrats convene, how do you gauge the state of the party? Is it healthy, or divided for the fall?

Answer: Certainly, the Democratic Party was more divided in 1968, 1972, 1976 and in 1980 than it is in 1992. The terrible divisions wrought by Vietnam are largely behind us. The old divisions predating Vietnam over race are not totally but largely behind us. There are still wings and factions and disagreements, but basically the party is united behind its nominee-to-be--Bill Clinton. He’s a moderate; he has strong ties in both the liberal and conservative camps, he has a program that is both consistent with traditional Democratic values but also softens some of the hard edges that drove many Democrats into the Reagan camp in 1980.

But being united is not enough. There is still some discontent with the nominee . . . . Because of the attacks upon his character, which first introduced him to a national audience, it’s been an uphill struggle. I’m reminded that, in 1960, because of Kennedy’s religion, and some other complaints about him, the party did not enthusiastically rally behind him until after his first debate with Nixon. That first debate with Bush and Perot is going to be an important time for Bill Clinton as well.

Q: There have been comparisons made between Bill Clinton and John Kennedy. You knew Kennedy better than most. Are there similarities?

A: Of course there are similarities. Bill Clinton is the youngest presidential nominee since Jack Kennedy; he had opponents both to the left and the right of him in a contest for the nomination, as Jack Kennedy did. And he hopes to reach out to as many voters in the middle as possible, just as Jack Kennedy did . . . . Both of them are very smart. Both of them married very smart and personable women. Both began with a base which was important, but not enough to win the nomination, much less the election . . . .

In 1960, the presidential campaign was a tremendous educational experience for Jack Kennedy . . . . I’ve observed the same thing in Bill Clinton. As sophisticated as he was, the campaign education that he’s received, some of it in a hard way, has broadened and strengthened him.

Q: In terms of their campaigns and overall appeal, what other similarities do you see between Clinton and Kennedy?

A: The generational theme is the most compelling link. Both men spoke in terms of the drift in which the country found itself, economically and otherwise. And Kennedy’s main theme--like Clinton’s now--was to get the country moving again. Both candidates talked about a new generation of leadership, and the selection of Albert Gore as Clinton’s running- mate underscores that. Clinton has not used those same words, “a new generation of Americans,” to my knowledge. But he’s developed that same idea. It’s at the heart of his message, and I don’t think we’ve seen a campaign like his since 1960. Both men approach it differently: Clinton reflects the theme in a number of specific ideas and proposals. Kennedy was less programmatic, certainly, but he was equally substantive. When you factor in their similarities in age, education and place on the political spectrum, it brings the two campaigns even closer. Both men stressed the fact that the country’s leaders were running out of ideas. That, in itself, is a compelling link.

Q: What about the choice of Gore?

A: It’s an outstanding selection. The fact that he (Gore) has been around the track once as a national candidate is a real plus for the ticket, along with his knowledge of domestic and foreign policy. I’m impressed by his strength on the environment, the fact that he is a war veteran and he certainly has all of the family values and more that Republicans have tried to make an issue out of. As a man of depth and achievement, he stands in sharp contrast to the Republican vice- presidential candidate.

Some people have said that this ticket has no geographic balance now. But the value of that can be overrated. I’d point out that in 1948, when Harry Truman was under siege, he also picked a member of the U.S. Senate--Alben Barkley of Kentucky, to be his running-mate. And Barkley, like Gore, was from an adjoining state. That ticket went on to a stunning victory in 1948, and I think you’ll see history repeat itself in 1992.

Q: Kennedy had an extraordinary relationship with the American people. Could a politician have the same relationship now?

A: We live in an age of cynicism. People are disillusioned, particularly about politics, about anyone in authority. Vietnam and Watergate helped bring that on . . . . The press has become more of an investigative vehicle. People who go into politics are subject to not only skepticism, but suspicion, almost automatically. Once we leaned too far the other way in having a reverence for presidents. But a little more deference wouldn’t be bad.

Kennedy did have a remarkable relationship with the people . . . . His live televised press conferences were unlike anything the American people had ever seen. It would take an extraordinary individual to overcome these suspicions that come up between the President and the people, and to recapture the kind of spirit that Kennedy had. But I don’t see why it should be impossible.

Q: Doesn’t the intrusiveness of the press make it impossible?

A: I don’t believe the media is incapable of self-restraint . . . . People have to decide what’s important. If they are more interested in a candidate’s public life and public record and public decisions, I think that’s what the media will emphasize. If the people are more interested in human flaws and imperfections, which are present in everyone, then the media--and some parts of the media in particular--will sensationalize private lives and make that kind of deference impossible.

Q: Returning to the Democrats, some say they need to solidify their base and turn out loyal voters to win. Others say the party has to expand its message and recapture the Reagan Democrats. Where do you stand?

A: Clearly in the latter camp. I think the Republicans may well be considering the converse of that strategy--concentrate on the right-wing, sew up the extreme conservatives and, if that gives you 38% in a three-way race, you’ll win . . . . But it’s bad nationally. If you alienate 62% of the population in this country in order to win with 38%, how do you govern effectively? I think the Democrats need a broad message, and I think Bill Clinton’s a broad messenger. He’s reaching out to those Democrats who deserted the party for Ronald Reagan; I think he can bring back the moderates. And he can do it without lowering the turnout of the more liberal Democrats.

Q: If the Democrats lose the White House again, that will be 16 years out of power. What will that say about the party’s future?

A: I’ve often wondered how the Republicans felt between 1932 and 1952, when they were out of power . . . . They didn’t abandon the party . . . . They hung in there, and the Democrats have to hang in there. I frankly don’t think the Democrats have offered their best people in every one of these elections. Some of the ablest men and women sat on the sidelines, and let others go out to seek the presidential nomination. I think we’re going to win in 1992. But if we don’t, we certainly have to make sure the first team is running for the nomination in 1996.

Q: Looking back to the 1960s, what have been the major changes in media coverage?

A: With respect to media coverage, it’s hard to see much improvement--except in the size of the press contingent . . . . Television has become much more of a dominant instrument of media coverage than it was in 1960. But with its increasing dominance, it’s diminishing the coverage of what the candidate says . . . . Candidates are partly at fault. They now base their whole campaigns on that sound bite on the evening news. A great mistake. John Kennedy would make 12-15 appearances a day, moving from one media market to another. Exhausting? Yes . . . . But he met, face to face, with a tremendous number of voters who felt his presence and his personality.

Q: How about the changing role of conventions?

A: Because of reforms enacted in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the nomination is almost inevitably settled in the primary process . . . . But conventions are still extremely important and interesting. You have the selection of a vice-presidential nominee, and the content and quality of the presidential nominee’s acceptance speech. Those all tell us a lot about the party and where it’s going . . . . I’ll never forget (at the 1960 convention) then-Sen. Kennedy saying to me: “Well, (political boss) David Lawrence of Pennsylvania is for me because he thinks (political boss) Jake Harvey of Illinois is for me, and Harvey’s for me because he thinks Lawrence is for me. Let’s get this roll call over and get out of here before they discover neither one is really for me!” . . . .

Q: What do you think about the character issue? Have we gone too far in dissecting candidates? Does the press need to re-evaluate its behavior?

A: It’s easy to sell newspapers with sleaze, and I think the press knows that it has a higher responsibility . . . . What the American people are entitled to know is a candidate’s character as it will affect his conduct in public office. If the king has a mistress who is influencing the appointments to his royal court, people should know . . . . But matters that are purely part of a candidate’s private life should not matter that much. Character, to me, has a much broader meaning than someone’s private life. Character is demonstrated by compassion for people at the bottom of the economic ladder. Character is demonstrated not by a sermon on family values, but by trying to do something for a family that is under tremendous strain. Being concerned about family values means doing something about AIDS and teen-age pregnancy, and drug rehabilitation and child care. I’m not interested in sermons from those who oppose all those programs.