Election ’88 Will Redefine ‘the Graying of America’

A remarkable transformation took place in American journalism in the week between the Pennsylvania primary and last week’s contests in Ohio, Indiana and the District of Columbia. The media shifted their coverage from the presidential primaries to the general election.

What, after all, could the press say about the long-running Democratic sitcom, “Jesse and the Duke�? Jesse Jackson’s attacks on Michael Dukakis were cranky but measured; Dukakis responded with grim-faced forbearance and assurances that the blood of the voters will ultimately quicken with passion over his skillful techniques of public administration. Like two cantankerous middle-aged bachelor roommates, Dukakis and Jackson can bicker pretty well, but neither has worked up enough of a tantrum to break the crockery. Journalists, not surprisingly, are tired of these dreary reruns and turn hopefully to the fall lineup of new shows. Judging from the early reviews, their hope should be deeply tinged with desperation at the prospect of two bleak functionaries, Dukakis and George Bush, engaging in an apocalyptic battle of the bureaucrats.

To say that an election will be close is not the same thing as saying that it will be exciting. Put another way, whatever excitement is generated by this campaign will come from the likely closeness of an outcome rather than from any inherent dramaturgy. The 1988 presidential election will be a contest of issues that do not polarize, candidates who do not electrify, and political coalitions that behave predictably. The one current source of possible turmoil is the role that will be taken by Jackson, but even that holds out only the most slender dramatic possibilities.

For starters, the 1988 contest promises to be a dull affair because the substantive debates in the campaign will be conducted over what the pollsters call the “valence issues�--those on which there is a bipartisan consensus. We are told that the leading issue on voters’ minds is drugs. What would a Bush-Dukakis debate over drugs sound like? Dukakis would link Bush with the failure of the Reagan Administration to stem the flow of drugs from abroad, and Bush would come back with his own statistic showing percentage increases in the number of tons of cocaine seized by the Coast Guard. Neither man is pro-drug, and neither favors the summary execution of drug dealers. Their struggle will be over proportionality. A little bit like two gardeners debating the proper mixture of chelated iron and fish emulsion on a rose bush.

Then there is the dreaded distended deficit as an issue. Arguing the pernicious future effects of the deficit to a nation with low inflation and low unemployment is like preaching hellfire and damnation to a man relaxing over his second martini. There is, moreover, no pro-deficit position. But Bush and Dukakis will argue over how best to cut the deficit. Discussions of this kind often soar toward a kind of policy metaphysics that leaves the voters dazed. Debates over items in the budget tend to be ideologically constrained because categories of the federal budget, rather than the underlying philosophies of government, become the weapons of combat between the candidates.

The personalities and backgrounds of the two candidates will accentuate the blandness of the campaign, despite the best efforts of the media to hype it as a rerun of Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg. It is more likely to resemble World War I’s Battle of Verdun, with both sides slogging dismally in the mud.

The reason for this is that both Bush and Dukakis are creatures of the executive branch of government. People who shoot from the hip generally do not prosper as public-sector executives. In that environment, tasks get staffed out. People operate on the basis of expertise rather than inspiration. Accountability is expected. Reports need to be filed. Neatness counts. Is it any wonder that Jackson, with his lilting alliterative style and his earthy metaphors, found favor with the voters?

Finally, there is the likelihood that there will be no major defections from either party. The basic elements of both parties’ electoral coalitions will probably be in place. There is no disgruntled organized rightist faction poised to desert Bush, and we can expect that his choice of a running mate will be influenced by the need to reassure conservatives.

The unity of the Democratic coalition is less well assured, given the uncertainty over the future role of Jackson. What argues well for Democratic unity in November is the manner in which Jackson has conducted himself in 1988. He has not even hinted at the possibility that he will play the spoiler. His idiom may make some people uncomfortable, but Jackson has thus far been a scrupulous team player. But were he to become disenchanted with Dukakis as the nominee, his alienation would be a serious problem for the Democrats. A recent poll indicated that 20% of black voters will cast ballots for Bush if Jackson fails to get his party’s nomination, and an estranged Jackson might urge others to stay home. Dukakis’ subdued responses to Jackson’s jibes reflect the need to keep him in the family. If Jackson is mollified at a reasonable price, the party will leave Atlanta unified.

With defections by extreme liberals and ultra-conservatives unlikely, the stage will be set for a contest for the persuadable middle of the electorate. Such campaigns are undertaken with moderate utterances, not war whoops. The general election might not unfold with precisely the dignity of a stately religious procession, but it is likely to be far less stimulating than a circus parade.