Addled, Bereft, Dole Sputters to the End

Bob Dole is just too intemperate, contradictory and addled to be president. I wish it were otherwise. Clinton could use the competition.

I have been a Dole fan ever since I interviewed him in the 1980 presidential primaries, and I had fully expected these last few years that he would rise phoenix-like from the ashes of moderate Republicanism to reclaim the soul of his party.

He should have kicked Newt Gingrich’s butt when that irresponsible backbencher suddenly rose to leadership of the House and set about dismantling vital bipartisan programs that Dole had long supported, including aid for disabled kids. He should have continued to ridicule the nostrums of the supply-siders instead of opportunistically embracing a ruinous election-year tax cut. And the old Bob Dole would have reminded the current crop of race-baiters, as Colin Powell has, that affirmative action was a bipartisan program and that immigrants are the lifeblood of this country.

Above all, he had an obligation to defend the inherent legitimacy of the federal government, which has been his life’s work. Instead, he turned tail and joined the merry pranksters of the right in demeaning every public program from toxics cleanup to food stamps as the subversive enterprise of a cult called liberalism.

The Dole I interviewed in 1980 for The Times respected the liberals on the other side of the aisle as trusted colleagues: “Nobody works more closely together on a lot of issues than me and George McGovern--he co-sponsors my things, I co-sponsor his things. George McGovern is a very bright guy, he’s a very decent guy. . . . I did a lot of work with Humphrey--we worked together on farm programs, social programs--and with Ribicoff, I do a lot of work with Abe Ribicoff on aid to the disabled, and he’ll tell you, on social programs, Bob Dole is a liberal.”

As well he should be today. This election has demonstrated that no one can be elected president who threatens the main achievements of modern liberalism: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

For good reason. Seniors, including Dole’s late grandparents, were once the poorest segment of this society, totally exposed to the cruel temperament of the market economy. Thanks to modern liberalism, seniors are now the most secure. This is significant not just because they live longer and vote in greater numbers, but because the liberal programs have lifted a tremendous burden from their middle-aged children. Anyone with a parent who is not super rich should give thanks to Ted Kennedy for keeping them out of bankruptcy. The specter of personal bankruptcy is far more chilling than concerns about the national debt, which is why liberalism continues to be honored in practice even as it is sullied in name.

But liberal bashing remains the favorite ploy of losers, as it was for Dole in Texas the other day: “We got to stop the liberal bias in this country. . . . We are not going to let the media steal this election. The country belongs to the people, not the New York Times. . . . This is about saving our country.” From the New York Times?

Dole’s campaign is now in the sputtering mode. The candidate is totally bereft of any core program or values. During the primaries, Dole talked much about abortion, but now the subject is barely mentioned for fear of enlarging the gender gap, though he still nods to the abortion-is-murder crowd by belittling the need for rare third-semester abortions to save a woman’s life.

Dole has more popular “wedge” issues to exploit right now, denigrating many first-time immigrant voters as “criminals,” and, in an Orwellian twist of language, condemning affirmative action as “the shame of race-based discrimination.”

No matter that Dole fought to save affirmative action programs during the Reagan years. Only last year, Dole wrote in his autobiography that if affirmative action “means recruiting qualified women and minorities to give them an opportunity to compete, without guaranteeing the results, then I’m for that too.” The California initiative that he now supports would ban just that sort of recruitment, but intellectual consistency is, sadly, no longer one of the constraints on Dole’s mind.

By comparison, Bill Clinton seems principled and solid, no mean feat. In the vacuum that is the Dole candidacy, Clinton has been given a free ride by virtue of his youthful good looks, command of the issues, clarity of mind and seeming prescience as to who we are and where we are headed. The downside of Clinton is that he can be a flaming opportunist, as evidenced by his betrayal of the poor in jettisoning the federal welfare obligation. But compared to the Dole on display in this campaign, Clinton is a model of progressive thought and integrity.