Dukakis

PHILADELPHIA — In the first one-on-one debate of the 1988 Democratic presidential campaign, front-runner Michael S. Dukakis and his sole remaining adversary, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, both contended Friday night that it was too soon to discuss whether Dukakis should ask Jackson to be his running mate.

But the fact that the subject came up several times during the hourlong televised encounter, in advance of Tuesday’s presidential primary here in the Keystone State, reflected the degree to which Gov. Dukakis’ victory in the contest is widely considered all but assured. At the same time, the questions about Jackson’s becoming the first black to run on the national ticket of a major party were a measure of the impact the civil rights leader has had on the Democratic campaign.

‘Are You Interested?’

For their own differing reasons–Jackson because he is unwilling to have his presidential candidacy written off and Dukakis because he is leery of overconfidence–both men sought to dismiss the idea. Nevertheless, Dukakis twice during the debate leaned over to Jackson when the subject of the vice presidency was raised and asked: “Are you interested?”

While his comments brought laughter, as they were intended to, they also will inevitably fan speculation about what is certain to become the preoccupation of the two candidates and other Democratic leaders until the Atlanta convention in July is concluded.

When he was asked if he would accept an offer from Dukakis, Jackson said: “It’s a bit premature to be giving out coronation roses for the governor and taps for me.”

Jackson asserted that he and Dukakis were really in a “neck-and-neck contest,” contending that he trailed the governor by only about 170,000 votes after weeks of campaigning and made plain that he was not prepared to call it quits.

Pride of Accomplishment

“We’re sitting here side by side,” Jackson said of himself and Dukakis at one point, signaling not only his pride at what he had accomplished but his determination to press on. “But we’re not equal because I’ve come from furthest back to get here.”

And when Dukakis was asked about his ability to run well in the South, as a Northeastern governor, Jackson interjected: “With Mike Dukakis on my ticket we will win the South.”

Dukakis, when asked if he would choose Jackson to be his running mate, said: “My job right now is to work hard to win this nomination, and it is by no means won.”

In their first encounter since last Tuesday’s New York primary effectively eliminated Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr. from the race and significantly fattened Dukakis’ lead in the race for delegates, both candidates aimed most of their shots past each other at the Reagan Administration and at the presumptive Republican standard-bearer, Vice President George Bush.

Thus when he was questioned about his plans to expand industry in Pennsylvania and other states that are in worse economic shape than his own Massachusetts, Dukakis criticized Reagan for threatening to veto the trade bill passed Thursday by the House because of its provision requiring a 60-day advance notice of plant shutdowns or layoffs.

Hits Reagan on Terrorism

And he also used a question on terrorism to condemn the Reagan Administration for trying to trade arms to Iran in the hope of gaining the release of U.S. hostages as “the worst possible thing we could have done.”

And Jackson attacked the Reagan Administration for its dealings with Panamanian strongman Manuel A. Noriega, whom he denounced as a drug dealer, and for what he charged was its general ineffectiveness in combatting drugs.

In one of the rare occasions that either of the two Democrats challenged each other, Jackson pressed Dukakis on whether the governor would apply his terrorist policy to South Africa after Dukakis said he would never negotiate with terrorists, even to save the lives of hostages and also said that if necessary he would order military strikes against terrorist base camps and support bases in other countries.

“If we are serious about international terrorism,” Dukakis said, the United States might have to launch such strikes. “I think a President who is serious about this,” Dukakis said, “can work with our allies and the international community to mount a very serious effort against terrorism.”

Questioned on South Africa

Jackson then contended that South Africa had committed aggression against several of the “front-line” African states on its borders and, declaring that such tactics amounted to “state terrorism,” asked Dukakis what his response would be.

Dukakis said he would be “very tough” on South Africa and would impose economic sanctions against that country but refused to say whether he would take military action.

Jackson also subtly needled Dukakis after the governor took credit for the prosperity in Massachusetts, which he referred to as “an economic miracle.”

Jackson noted that Dukakis and Massachusetts had the advantage of substantial federal investment and said that Democratic Gov. Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania, who was in attendance at the debate sponsored by the state Democratic Party, “could have a boom too” under similar conditions.

LANSING, Mich — In a stunning victory that gave a major boost to his presidential candidacy, the Rev. Jesse Jackson overwhelmed Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis Saturday in the Michigan Democratic presidential caucuses.

Running strongly in white and black areas, Jackson got nearly twice as many popular votes as Dukakis, and also appeared to be winning considerably more delegates than Dukakis, based on the popular vote in the 18 congressional districts.

With 85% of the vote in, Jackson had 101,037 votes or 54% of the total, to 53,041 votes or 28% for Dukakis.

Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, who had said he had to win in Michigan to remain a strong candidate, was running a distant third with 23,732 or 13%. Aides said he would meet today with family and advisers before announcing whether he will pull out of the race and run for reelection to Congress.

Simon and Gore Trail

Far behind were Sens. Paul Simon of Illinois and Albert Gore Jr. of Tennessee with about 2% of the vote each. Neither had campaigned hard in Michigan.

Preliminary calculations by the Associated Press gave Jackson 61 national convention delegates, Dukakis 43, Gephardt 22, and 12 undecided among the 138 at stake in Michigan.

These results tightened the overall delegate race a bit. By the AP count, Dukakis had 596.55, Jackson had 584.55, Gore had 362.8, Gephardt 178, Simon 171.5, and 371.6 were uncommitted. To win the nomination, a candidate needs 2,082 delegates.

Jackson, meanwhile, was already about 200,000 popular votes ahead of Dukakis nationally before his big triumph Saturday.

It was a big victory for Jackson–who finished third here in 1984–because this was the party’s first test in a major industrial state in which no favorite son was on the ballot.

And it dealt a blow to Dukakis’ recent argument that he was moving inevitably toward the Democratic nomination with his steady accumulation of delegates. Eleven days ago, he had finished third in Illinois behind favorite sons Simon and Jackson.

“This is the first major test where everyone was on the visiting team,” said Joel Ferguson, chairman of Jackson’s Michigan campaign. “No one was on his home turf.”

“You cannot minimize or denigrate Jackson’s victory in Michigan, and anyone who does is missing what is going on out there,” said Los Angeles attorney Mickey Kantor, a longtime adviser to many Democratic candidates.

“Jesse Jackson has proved that if you have a message and a natural constituency it makes a great deal of difference,” added Kantor, who has provided informal advice to the Gore campaign.

Dukakis had hoped in Michigan to have the edge in delegates–and declare that a victory–because 90 of the 138 delegates are apportioned by congressional district, and the governor expected Jackson’s strength to be largely confined to two predominantly black districts in Detroit.

Won 10 of 18 Districts

Instead, Jackson won the popular vote in 10 of the 18 districts, many of them with a low percentage of blacks.

For all of Jackson’s surprising statewide strength, it was the black vote–particularly in Detroit–that gave him his landslide. More than 42% of Jackson’s total vote came in the two majority black districts. And blacks apparently turned out strongly in other districts.

Jackson defied conventional wisdom on two counts here: He ran well all over the state and he won despite what party officials considered a high turnout–about 200,000 caucus-goers.

The reasoning before today was that a high turnout would benefit Dukakis because much of it would be whites newly attracted to the process. But clearly Jackson won many of those whites.

Wins University Towns

Jackson won the majority-white congressional districts containing the cities of Saginaw, Flint, Pontiac, Lansing, Kalamazoo and Muskegon. He also won in the university towns of Ann Arbor (University of Michigan) and East Lansing (Michigan State).

In the congressional district that includes the city of Flint and its heavily unionized auto plants, Jackson beat Dukakis by more than 2 to 1, an indication that many workers were remembering that Jackson had stood with strikers and the unemployed in a number of areas around the country.

But Jackson also did respectably in middle and upper Michigan, areas with few blacks and union members.

“We felt if we took Jesse around the state and people heard what he had to say, we would win,” said Ferguson.

Picking Front-Runner

Then, in a reference to a statement by Democratic National Chairman Paul G. Kirk Jr. that the party should soon unite behind a front-runner, Ferguson added:

“If we are going to get behind a consensus front-runner, that means we ought to get behind Jesse Jackson.”

As the outcome became clear Saturday evening, Dukakis acknowledged that it was Jackson’s night.

“It looks as if Rev. Jackson has won the popular vote in Michigan,” the Massachusetts governor said late Saturday in Milwaukee, where he was already campaigning for Wisconsin’s April 5 primary. “I congratulate Jesse on this. He’s run a good campaign, an exciting campaign.”

‘Nothing Inevitable’

When asked about his own prospects for winning the nomination, Dukakis said: “There’s nothing inevitable about anything in American politics.

“It’s a marathon,” he said. “We’re really only at the midpoint. I don’t think I did very well in Michigan today. I did reasonably well, but I don’t think I did spectacularly well.”

Dukakis’ national political coordinator, Alice Travis, took a more strategic approach to the Michigan result, attempting to portray the race now as one between a Democrat who could be elected in November, Dukakis, and one who she and others do not think could be elected, Jackson.

‘A Two-Man Race’

“It’s a two-man race,” Travis said in Lansing as the returns came in. “Only two candidates are running national campaigns. We’ve always said first or second place would be good in Michigan and we’ve gotten a lot of delegates around the state.”

But the best face Dukakis could put on the Michigan result was that it apparently eliminated Gephardt as a serious candidate, leaving only Gore as a serious white alternative to Dukakis.

Gephardt, who had tried to restart his presidential campaign in Michigan, planned to meet with family and advisers today before announcing whether he will pull out of the race and run for reelection to Congress, aides said.

“He’s going to go home (to Washington), meet with his family Sunday and look at the numbers,” campaign press secretary Ali Webb said. “He’ll have something to say Monday.”

Bitter Medicine

Speaking in Milwaukee Saturday night, Gephardt appeared resigned to the inevitable, and spoke of his campaign in the past tense.

“My campaign has had its successes and its setbacks,” he said. “But at heart, our greatest victory has been to call the Democratic Party back to its essential role as an agent of fundamental change.”

Tuesday is the deadline for Gephardt to file as a candidate for reelection to Congress from Missouri. Although aides said he could file for reelection and remain a candidate for President, his showing in Michigan increased the chances he will drop out of the presidential contest.

Staff writers Robert A. Rosenblatt in Lansing and Robert Shogan in Milwaukee contributed to this story.

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. — In Waco, Tex., Richard A. Gephardt kicked off his Super Tuesday campaign by deriding Michael S. Dukakis as the Democratic presidential candidate with the most money and “the least message.”

The next day, in Deerfield Beach, Fla., Dukakis castigated Gephardt as “the prince of darkness” for appealing to the angry side of America with his complaints about unfair foreign economic competition.

In part, the two candidates generally deemed the front-runners in the Democratic race, who came here last week for a debate before the cream of the Southern Democratic Party, are flinging rhetorical brickbats at each other because of the 20-state treasure-trove of delegates up for grabs in Super Tuesday’s primaries and caucuses.

Another Struggle

But Massachusetts Gov. Dukakis, the winner of the New Hampshire primary, and Missouri Rep. Gephardt, the winner of the Iowa caucuses, are locked in another struggle as well, one that transcends even as rich a prize as Super Tuesday. At stake is nothing less than the heart, mind and future of the Democratic Party.

And that deeper struggle has injected a bitter, biting element into the campaign because the cleavages between the two leaders are sharply drawn along class, cultural and regional lines.

To put the matter in starkly simple terms, Dukakis, with his core support in the suburbs and among upscale city dwellers, reflects the beliefs and values of the party’s Eastern liberal Establishment, and the interests of the nation’s thriving bicoastal economy.

Gephardt, hailing from America’s economically hard-hit hinterland with his Missouri legacy of Harry S. Truman populism, is striving to speak to and for working-class voters. Such voters have been the foundation of classic Democratic majorities of the sort the party has seldom managed to assemble in recent years.

“Nothing is ever 100% black and white in politics,” says Southern pollster Claibourne H. Darden Jr. As he suggests, the realities of the immediate battle for votes are so complex that the underlying struggle may not be precisely reflected in the election returns across Dixie or the rest of the nation.

“But there’s a real socioeconomic division here,” Darden says. “Gephardt is after the ‘Bubba’ vote–the good old boys, the middle-middle section of the Democratic Party. And Dukakis is the darling of the educated liberals and the suburbanites.”

In a sense, their battle is a sequel to the 1984 contest between Walter F. Mondale and Gary Hart, in which those two argued essentially over whether the Democratic Party needed to change. Although Mondale won the nomination, he lost the election and thus the argument: Virtually everyone entered the 1988 campaign agreeing that the Democratic Party needed to change.

The battle between Dukakis and Gephardt will help to settle the remaining question: In what new direction will the party now move?

Of course, Dukakis and Gephardt have to reckon with two other major rivals in the Southern contests–the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr.

Jackson is expected to run very well here Tuesday, perhaps capturing more states than any of his rivals. But most analysts doubt that he can sustain that success outside the South on the scale needed to make him a serious threat for the nomination.

As for Gore, few believe the only white Southerner in the race can do well enough in his home region to make up for his lack of achievement in the early contests elsewhere.

Meanwhile, what seems to be happening in the competition between Gephardt and Dukakis is that their debate is redefining the governing grammar of the Democratic Party, creating a new syntax in which the definitive phrases are not “liberal” and “conservative” but rather “change” and “pain.”

To a considerable extent the dividing line between Dukakis’ supporters and Gephardt’s backers is based on the degree to which any group of voters feels hurt by current economic conditions and prospects and the urgency with which they want to alter those conditions.

By using his argument against unfair trade practices as an expression of the case for broader change, “Gephardt has found a clean way to tap into the anger of voters who feel the circumstances of the economy are working against them,” said Paul Tully, former political director of Dukakis’ campaign.

Last January, just before the Iowa caucuses, Gephardt defined his populism in the rhetoric of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom he described as “the greatest populist of the century.” Recalling F.D.R.’s celebrated vow to crush “the forces of greed and privilege,” Gephardt called that dictum “the legacy and the life force” of the Democratic Party.

Listen to Gephardt 10 days ago at the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Atlanta, where he warned 3,500 Democrats that America was in decline and demanded change to reverse the tide.

“I want to put a Democrat in the White House in 1988 so we can make America move and soar again,” he declared. “But to move in that direction we must change America in fundamental ways. That’s what the election in 1988 is all about.

Must Stand for Change

“A lot of people don’t want change,” Gephardt warned. “Strong forces resist change for a whole lot of different reasons. You must understand that if you want to change America the only way it will happen is if you stand for change in the Tuesday, March 8, primary.”

This message, says Tully, has visceral appeal to “those Democrats who live in places where the economy is threatening or not encouraging.” Moreover, Gephardt’s insistence on tougher trade policies, denounced as “protectionist’ by the well-educated middle-class supporters of Dukakis, appears to strike a responsive chord among the blue-collar workers Gephardt is trying to reach.

For many of them, political professionals point out, the idea that it is time for the United States to get back at foreign competitors has not only economic significance but also patriotic resonance.

Because of this, many Democratic politicians believe this issue could help win back former Democrats who have turned away from the party and supported Ronald Reagan in recent years because they believed that Democratic national leaders were namby-pambies in dealing with foreign nations.

“The trade issue is a metaphor for the sense that people have that they have lost control of their economic destiny, for the sense that many people feel that ‘my standard of living is slipping, we’re drifting and we’re slipping,’ ” says Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), a Gephardt supporter.

Dukakis is for change too, Tully asserts. But the Massachusetts governor is a self-decribed optimist. And the kind of change for which he argues is more businesslike and less impassioned, more methodical and less fundamental than what Gephardt preaches.

“It is more of a roll up your sleeves and get on with the work approach,” Tully says. “And it appeals to people who want change but who have a lower level of anxiety than Gephardt’s constituents.”

Central to Dukakis’ optimistic view and to his message of moderate change is the economic recovery in Massachusetts, for which he claims a large share of credit and which he seems to argue has almost unlimited relevance elsewhere in the nation.

“Over the last dozen years I’ve seen the Massachusetts economy turn around and come back strong,” Dukakis declared in a speech last fall on economic policy. “And over the past few months, campaigning around this country, I’ve seen example after example of the kind of strength and determination and spirit it will take to get our fiscal house in order and restore our competitiveness abroad.”

If Gephardt seems to respond to anger and frustration among the voters, Dukakis appears to try to smooth over grievances.

When the Democrats hold their nominating convention in July, Dukakis told the Atlanta dinner audience that Gephardt also addressed, “I hope we as a party will have learned the lessons of division. Let’s make 1988 a year for the promise of opportunity and not the politics of resentment.”

Ultimately, the argument between these two points of view will be settled at the ballot box.

And ironically, the circumstances of these two candidates and the special nature of those who normally vote in Democratic primaries suggests that–as in 1984–the apostle of fundamental change could be hard-pressed to win the nomination, while the moderate could lose in November.

More Electable

A good many Democrats who have reservations about Gephardt’s policies, particularly his views on trade, are nonetheless interested in the congressman’s candidacy because they think he would be more electable than Dukakis in November.

“Dukakis’ message is competence in domestic policy and the rule of law in foreign policy,” says Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), one of the House members who–along with many leading Southern politicians–gathered here at Williamsburg for a meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate-to-conservative office holders. “And, frankly, I’m not convinced it’s a winning message.

“The Gephardt message is very good for blue-collar workers,” continues Berman, who will not decide who to back until after Super Tuesday. “It could help us get back people we have been having trouble holding in general elections, people who were attracted to Reagan.”

Other Democrats are blunter in their assessment: “Dukakis looks like another 49-state blowout to me,” says a high-level Southern labor leader who declined to be identified. He thinks that Dukakis could not draw any significant amount of votes beyond what Mondale received in 1984, when he carried only Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

By contrast, this official believes that Gephardt would “bring the white middle-class and blue-collar vote in the South back to the Democrats. We have to be a party that’s not just interested in redistributing wealth, that’s also interested in helping the middle class.”

But for all Gephardt’s potential assets in the fall, some think he may never have the chance to cash in on them because of the practical realities governing Democratic primary politics, particularly in the South.

“(Dukakis’) is an elitist campaign,” Martin Linsky, a public policy specialist at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, says. “But the primary in the South is a setup for him. He gets the suburban, liberal upper-middle-class vote.” And, as Linsky points out, these are the voters most likely to go to the polls on Tuesday.

Gephardt Might Struggle

Moreover, while Gephardt’s message of change gives him much broader potential appeal than Dukakis, many professionals believe that without the financial and organizational resources Dukakis has amassed, Gephardt will have to struggle to get his potential supporters to the ballot box.

And Gephardt’s ability to win votes by emphasizing basic differences from Dukakis is complicated somewhat by the fact that neither man’s origins quite match his current billing.

As Gephardt’s rivals never tire of pointing out, while serving as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus he was widely considered to be a fixture of the congressional hierarchy. And the legislative connections he fashioned with lobbyists for business and labor have helped finance his presidential campaign–to the tune of more than $350,000, or about 6% of his total contributions.

“Dick, don’t give us that Establishment stuff when you’re out there taking their money,” Dukakis snapped at Gephardt during the debate here last week. And the Dukakis campaign released a negative commercial later in the week attacking Gephardt on just the same grounds.

For his part, Dukakis entered politics sounding more like a neoliberal than a traditional liberal. And even today his views embody his natural frugality and his abounding faith in the efficacy of high technology and rational management.

Dukakis campaign chairman Paul Brountas, who has known the governor all his political life, says: “Certainly Michael Dukakis is a progressive”–a term Brountas prefers to “liberal.” But he adds: “He’s very conservative fiscally. And he’s run the state in a tight-fisted way.”

In the end, many believe the outcome of the Gephardt-Dukakis battle in Dixie may depend on whether Gephardt can reach the voters whose anger is fueling his candidacy.

Chris Scott, president of the North Carolina AFL-CIO, contends that Gephardt’s argument for retaliation against unfair trade practices has great appeal in his state, where the textile industry has been hard hit by foreign imports.

“Gephardt’s trade message can romp and stomp in this state,” Scott says. “But I don’t know if Gephardt can get the message out.”