Gentlemen, Light Your Fuse : The New Hampshire presidential primary is a year off, but the 1996 Republican race for the Un-Clinton has already begun

The high casualty rate in the 1996 GOP presidential nomination race in the last month could mean the Re publican Party’s search for the Un-Clinton--the political rescuer of a disenchanted America--has already narrowed to Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas vs. Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas. But maybe not--because the all-important New Hampshire primary, now just a year away, next Feb. 20, already looks like an explosive day in national politics. The whole year could be one of bombs and hand grenades.

The Republicans who have so far decided not to run include men once thought to be major 1996 players, such as Dan Quayle, Jack Kemp and Richard B. Cheney. Even House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia has announced he’ll stand aside. But it’s important to know if this reflects the strength of Dole and Gramm, or some other crosscurrents: The new Republican Congress, while still youthful, is starting to show major Achilles’ heels; several important political precedents suggest neither Dole nor Gramm can reach the White House, and, finally, the GOP may not even have Bill Clinton to run against next year.

In short, early 1996 politics has the potential to explode in many directions. The Un-Clinton for whom Americans seem to yearn could also be some new Democrat nominated because the Little Rock Casanova retires or gets a thumbs-down in a bitter New Hampshire primary. Or maybe the ultimate Un-Clinton will be an independent candidate such as Colin L. Powell, who just indicated, with a smile, that he is neither a Democrat nor a Republican. Then again, of course, the embattled President could win next year, with 41% in a three- or four-way race--especially if the nation’s desire for an Un-Clinton gives way to an even greater desire for an Un-Gingrich.

But back to Dole and Gramm. Other GOP presidential hopefuls are in the race or toying with it--including former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander, Gov. Pete Wilson of California, Sen. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, Rep. Robert K. Dornan and conservative hard-liner Patrick J. Buchanan, who seriously hurt George Bush in the 1992 primaries. Soothsayers who see a Dole-Gramm fight may be too caught up in the party’s historic two-way faceoffs--including Dwight D. Eisenhower vs. Robert A. Taft, Richard M. Nixon vs. Nelson A. Rockefeller and Gerald R. Ford vs. Ronald Reagan. For Dole and Gramm both have weighty handicaps.

Take Dole. Right now, his stock is high--understandably--from seeming to be the only adult keeping baby boomers Clinton and Gingrich apart. But Dole is 71 years old; he holds an office that has become one of the nation’s most unsuccessful presidential launching pads. But most of all, after two decades, Dole has been trying to get into the White House for so long that even voters’ memories of him have cobwebs.

Including this foray, Dole has run for the presidential nomination four times since 1976--a staleness that could be fatal. True, Franklin D. Roosevelt (in 1932) and Reagan (in 1980) didn’t win the White House until 12 years after their first national campaigns. But the only previous aspirant able to command a presidential nomination after two long decades of unsuccessful national office-seeking--Henry Clay in 1844--lost that November. He also had an unappealing nickname: “The Great Compromiser.”

There is another dubious augury for Dole. His old stridency and darkness are gone. He no longer wants to criticize any other Republican, and he seems to be shedding his Kansas populism for Eastern pin stripes. To keep his current high standing of 35%-45% in the polls--based largely on name recognition--Dole will have to broker a lot of 1995-96 Washington arrangements in the Clay style. But that pragmatism could draw challenges from true believers.

Moreover, Dole could be vulnerable in Iowa’s first-in-1996 caucuses if he can’t repeat the 37% victory he scored in 1988. And he’s clearly at risk in the first 1996 primary in New Hampshire, a state he lost in both 1980 and 1988.

Gramm’s problems are different. He’s won the two state straw polls held so far--in Louisiana and Arizona. However, the former economics professor would be the most strident and ideology-driven GOP nominee since Barry M. Goldwater. He has some ideological charms but lacks the personal sort. In fact, GOP insiders joke that no ballot won by Gramm could never be called a beauty contest.

But the Texas senator may also have a problem with sectionalism: His drawl is as thick as grits. And he may be going too far in seeking to be the religious right’s standard-bearer. In addition, the 20th-Century GOP has never chosen as its nominee someone who had previously held federal elective office as a Democrat . Gramm’s nomination would be another symbol of the South’s rising dominance in the GOP--and it could provoke an independent candidacy tilted to the moderate North, including a second Ross Perot bid or a Powell entry.

New Hampshire, however, is where the 1996 GOP nomination race could come apart. If Dole underperforms in Iowa’s caucuses, he could be edged out a week later in New Hampshire by a simultaneous surprise rebellion of the GOP’s two dissident wings.

From the moderate side, actual or potential contenders include Alexander (who now styles himself a conservative), Wilson, Lugar, Massachusetts Gov. William F. Weld, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, even New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman.

In this vein, New Hampshire has a long tradition--in both parties--of providing a springboard to moderate-seeming presidential aspirants from next-door Massachusetts. Previous winners include Henry Cabot Lodge in 1964, Michael S. Dukakis in 1988 and Paul E. Tsongas in 1992. For Weld, a cultural establishmentarian and pro-choice moderate, the New Hampshire confrontation is his obvious--probably his only --launching pad. He could jump in and win with 30%-35%. That’s more likely now--given the Christian Coalition’s recent indication that its members won’t support a GOP ticket in which even the vice presidential nominee is pro-choice on abortion. That would rule out Weld and most other moderates, which would increase the Massachusetts governor’s incentive for a New Hampshire power play. And who knows who would come in second.

Which brings us to Buchanan, who plagued Bush in the primaries two years ago--winning 37% in New Hampshire. If he does run again, he could fill two vacuums in the GOP field. Besides reclaiming a small cadre of loyalists from 1992, Buchanan could be the only right-wing populist and nationalist in the field, able to tap the large chunk of Republicans vigilant on such issues as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, immigration, Washington lobbyists and congressional waffling on term limits. Furthermore, if Perot looks like he’ll run as an independent again, Buchanan could appeal to many of the 15%-25% of the GOP who support Perot as a way to send a Perot-like message in the primary. Could the feisty rightist get 20%-25% of the New Hampshire vote? Conceivably.

Now, suppose Weld gets 30% in New Hampshire, Buchanan gets 24%, Gramm gets 22%, Dole gets 20% and the other 4% is scattered. The GOP could divide, not unite, in March as the big states vote--especially if Wilson makes a favorite-son grab for California’s huge delegation. If early front-runner Dole starts to fade, he could crumble in March and April just as early Democratic front-runner Edmund S. Muskie did in 1972. Ideological fratricide could take over. The party system could splinter again. Almost anything is possible.

Not that Democrats can snicker at the GOP’s possible embarrassment in New Hampshire. Right now, the Democrat in the White House is the first President elected in nearly 50 years without having won his own party’s New Hampshire primary. Clinton, remember, placed second to Tsongas, after local voters were turned off by the revelation of Clinton’s relationship with Gennifer Flowers and his 1969 hanky-panky with his home-state draft board.

Now that David Maraniss’ new book, “First in His Class,” has demonstrated that Clinton’s behavior was even more egregious than imagined, it is hard to believe that Granite State voters--who cherish their early role as evaluators of Presidents--won’t give Clinton a resounding “gotcha”--and that’s assuming he puts his name on the ballot. He must remember how two postwar Democratic Presidents--Harry S. Truman in 1952 and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968--were forced to retire by negative results in New Hampshire primaries.

If so, of course, the Un-Clinton who emerges could represent a variety of origins--Republican, Independent or even insurgent Democratic. In any event, the never-more-important 1996 New Hampshire primary is now only 52 weeks away--and fuses are being lit from Boston to Sacramento.*