Just kidding, of course. But the less-than-imposing convention site seemed yet another indication that the 1996 Republican presidential campaign remains, well, less than imposing. Even in a week when Bill Clinton appeared to stumble a bit – the Whitewater verdicts, the Israeli election returns, assorted personal gaffelets – the Dole effort bumped along, unable to gain any sort of traction or even a vague sense of purpose. He visited California, generally assumed to be Clinton country. It was not a visit to strike fear in the heart of any Democrat. The theme was crime. But instead of meeting with citizens mad as hell about predators and the incompetence of the government’s response, Dole’s advance team deposited him not only in neighborhoods that had made great progress in taking back their streets, but – surgically, laughably, remarkably – in several that had done so with the help of Clinton crime-bill funds. Indeed, Dole was introduced in Redondo Beach by a community leader named Laverne Batton, who remarked on the need for more after-school education and recreational programs. (Dole had voted against the crime bill because it contained $4 billion for such things.) She later admitted to being a Democrat but claimed to be ““undecided’’ in 1996.
Dole did seem more comfortable on the stump, taking time to listen to voters. He’s now, finally, able to rouse partisan audiences; with nonpartisan crowds, he can appear convincingly compassionate. ““Some children never have a chance in this country,’’ he said in Redondo Beach. ““Some children are never loved, are never touched . . . It’s not with a great deal of enthusiasm that you talk about locking up children. We’re talking about human beings.''
But, one wonders, what is the strategy here? Dole gave an excellent, groundbreaking speech on social policy in Philadelphia several weeks ago. But those themes have vanished into the ether, replaced by lazy, shopworn attacks against soft-on-crime ““liberals.’’ The California foray, a tactical feint that may or may not be followed up on, betrayed not only the aimlessness of the Dole campaign but also its strategic dilemma. A major decision looms: whether to emphasize some positive, programmatic alternative to the Clinton presidency – or conduct a passive, reactive (and no doubt negative) campaign in the hope that the American people will decide they just don’t trust the other guy.
Do both, you say. I’m not so sure. It’s going to be hard to find an issue that cuts. For example: Clinton’s record on crime hasn’t been stellar. He promised 100,000 more cops and has delivered 17,000. His crime bill was filled with mayoral pork and garbage (and I don’t mean cops, prisons or after-school programs). But the president has probably done just enough to blunt any Republican assault; in fact, Clinton’s support for youth curfews last week was far more intriguing than anything Dole could muster in California. The same appears to be true on most of the other big issues – welfare, budget balancing, perhaps even tax cuts: Clinton can argue that he’s for responsible versions of all the above. Which leaves Dole out on a limb, with only the option of doing something irresponsible or out of character, like supporting a big, budget-busting, supply-side tax cut.
A compelling case is being made for Dole to do just that. Republicans, it is said, need to take the tax issue back. Dole needs to distinguish himself dramatically from the president, right now. He needs to change the dynamic of the campaign soon, lest it be set in concrete by Labor Day (the mantra is that the polls don’t move much after that). But to suddenly espouse a massive, Forbesian tax cut – and to do so without explaining how he’s going to pay for it – Dole would have to violate his record of courage and responsibility on budget issues, and thereby undermine the most powerful argument he’ll have against Clinton: that Dole’s a man of character, stability and consistency. That he’s an honest conservative.
True conservatism isn’t easy in these media-addled times. Candidates are surrounded by handlers who jabber about the need for a daily rant, a theme of the week, something new, different and revolutionary. You gotta have a gimmick: it’s hard to get on the evening news if the ““big’’ story you’re offering is that you continue to stand by your principles. But that is Dole’s best hope. And it will require more than just extraordinary patience. It will require a respect for the public and a deftness his camp has yet to demonstrate, an ability to help deflate the Clinton balloon without getting too ugly. Restraint could well pay off: I have a feeling that the conventional wisdom is precisely wrong, that – barring some catastrophe – this race won’t be decided until the very last moment, when the American people take a final, private look at Bill and Hillary Clinton and decide whether these are people who can be entrusted with another four years.
