The 1988 race is on: the ‘Economist’ reports Democrats look for the man who will probably succeed Mr Reagan

Press, 10 March 1987, Page 12

The 1988 race is on: the ‘Economist’ reports Democrats look for the man who will probably succeed Mr Reagan

Bar accidents, or unexpected Republican recovery-power, a Democrat will be President in 1989.

The accident most feared by Democratic strategists is that a flawed ticket will eventually emerge from the grinding jaws of the primary-election system. Hence the present flood of electoral lore: a Democrat who loses Texas loses the country, a northern liberal Protestant with a northern Catholic running-mate is sure to fail, ignore the South at your peril. All this is designed to prevent the Democrats from picking a nominee who might, even in these promising times, blow the party’s chances. And though the times, because of the Iran-contra affair, are indeed promising for the Democrats, they are also unstable. The trends that dominated voting patterns in 1984 may be on their way out: yuppies, for instance, are beginning to seem as dated as hippies. Yet it is still far too early to know what the electorate will be looking for in November 1988. Political pundits, however, are making their guesses. They think, for instance, that voters, disillusioned by the blowing away of that old Reagan magic, may be looking for a very different type of leader: a sharpwitted President who understands detail, respects the law and is prepared to work a little. Nobody, these days, will campaign as a big spender but "government” is unlikely to be portrayed in the adversarial light of a few years ago. Wiser, perhaps, after the experience of two outsiders (Presidents Reagan and Carter), voters may be ready for a Washington insider. And Democrats may be less prepared than they were to accept their party’s past as a liability. Both parties compete as the custodians of traditional or family values, but Democrats are now more self-confident in putting their own interpretation on these values. Even in 1984, when President Reagan was manifestly invincible, the voters showed no taste for Democrats masquerading as Republicans. The supply of potential Democratic candidates is unusually rich. Half a dozen candidates, most of them in their 40s, are declared or dithering. All claim the intellectual vigour and sense of judgment needed to lead a country that feels it has been twisted around in circles for the past few months.

Not all of them, though, are consumed with that over-riding passion to be President that gives a man the resilience to survive the year-long killing fields of campaigning, fund-raising and microscopic exposure. Representative Richard Gephardt, who has become the first Democrat to announce his candidacy is generously endowed with that passion. So too is Colorado’s ex-Senator Gary Hart, the front-runner on his second time round the course. Georgia’s Senator Sam Nunn is not: he has decided to concentrate, for at least six months, on his job as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Though he says he is keeping his options open, he may, six months hence, find them closed; his southern supporters will by then be under pressure to transfer their loyalty to a non-southerner. And New York’s Governor Mario Cuomo, who announced at the end of a radio programme on February 19 that he was pulling out of the race — “best for my state, best for my family and I think also best for my party” — is plainly unconsumed. Mr Cuomo’s withdrawal is the most inspired political action he has taken since he delivered his eloquent keynote speech to the 1984 Democratic National Convention. His own state knows him as a governor who combines

social liberalism with fiscal conservatism.

But his national reputation rests on that one speech, a speech that shone partly because most of the other harangues were so bad and partly because the atmosphere at the convention was so skewed. On the strength of it, Mr Cuomo was established as the keeper of the Democratic conscience, the man who saw the party as a compassionate and responsible family. In opinion polls on possible Democratic candidates, Mr Cuomo has scored around 15-20 per cent (Mr Hart gets nearly 40 per cent, the Rev. Jesse Jackson about 12 per cent and the others are nowhere). By withdrawing early, and in his own way, Mr Cuomo preserves his consciencekeeper strength intact. The support that he commanded will be spread among the other candidates. His New York money will be welcomed by Mr Hart, who is still nagged by the debt he accumulated, in his 1984 campaign. But Mr Cuomo’s withdrawal will accentuate the loneliness and the pitfalls of being out in front: it is now, undisguisedly, Mr Hart against the field.

Mr Hart has not, as yet, been able to bury all the doubts that surfaced in 1984. People then were made uneasy by the speed of his rise. They were not sure

who he was, suspecting he might be less than he seemed. Without a sure base he was done down by the skilled mockery of the Mondale campaign. Mr Hart has worked, and learnt, a lot since then. Nobody could suggest now, as they did then, that his ideas lack substance. With diligence, and some courage, he has fortified his theories with factual speeches and policy papers on foreign affairs, defence, industry, trade and education.

To a greater degree than any other Democrat, his agenda is out there in the open. The others can take pot-shots at it but they probably cannot equal the rigorousness of his homework.

The snapshot portrait of Mr Hart is that he is a bit remote, a bit bloodless. It is not easy to counter that kind of criticism, to prove that you are really a warm likeable fellow. And Mr Hart is known to prefer a book, sometimes, to shaking hands. If Mr Cuomo had decided to take him on in the primaries, the battle would have been billed, however superficially, as tradition against reform, fire against ice. With Mr Cuomo gone, the emotional flame may be passed to Delaware’s Senator Joe Biden. If Mr Biden decides to run (he is expected to, but, officially, is still pondering how he can find time

for both the campaign and his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee), he will be an engaging candidate on the stump: quick-witted, forceful, candid, sometimes talking too much.

He is a skilful legislator, easy to like, a good communicator and, like the great communicator himself, something of an actor. Mr Nunn’s cast-aside southern mantle is as desirable as Mr Cuomo’s: southerners would dearly like their own man to compete, though they may eventually have to settle for their own man in spirit, rather than in geography. Arkansas’s Senator Dale Bumpers, older than the others and evoking memories of Hamlet-like indecision about running last time round, may decide to make a bid for it this time.

Compassionate, intellectual and with a country-lawyer background, he would make a good candidate, if he could put his heart into it. Arkansas’s Governor Bill Clinton, an attractive man in the Kennedy mould, is also interested. And Virginia’s former governor, Mr Charles Robb, could' try to ride to the White House on the back of the South.

Arizona’s ex-Governor Bruce Babbitt, who may be the next to make his candidacy official, is claiming, a little implausibly, that Arizona is almost a part of the South. More plausibly, he claims to have southern support.

Mr Babbitt is a clever man who talks sense, even when sense is unpopular. He suggests, for instance, that the rich should pay tax on their social-security benefits (pensions). Massachusetts’s Governor Michael Dukakis may have his mind made up by Mr Cuomo’s withdrawal. He could expect support in New England, though not necessarily in early-primary New Hampshire.

Mr Hart became well known three years ago. As senators go, Mr Biden has something of a reputation. But who, outside his own region, party circles or Capitol Hill, has heard of Gephardt or Robb, Dukakis or Clinton, Bumpers or Babbitt? Good men all, but it is a gruelling battle to get your name known nationally. It is salutary to recollect that, at this stage in the 1984 race, Mr Gary Hart was getting around 4 per cent of the opinion polls and few knew who he was. Dedication, and organisation, changed all that. Copyright—The Economist