'The Chemistry Has Changed'

As Jerry Brown got ready to do battle in Oregon and Nevada, he discussed his campaign and his views with TIME'S Jess Cook. Highlights:

Q. Why have you said politics requires a sense of the absurd?

A. Did I say that? Well, there is a sense of going through a programmed ritual. Each person plays a role--the press, the candidate. It's repetitive. It is absurd to be saying the same thing over and over. There seems to be a premise that a good candidate can produce the Holy Grail. All you can really do is say your piece, which isn't all that different from anybody else's. But I can't come up with a better substitute [to campaigning]. It's a testing process that brings out what people are like.

Q. You recently remarked that you represent the future, meaning what?

A. I said that too? I suppose I have a sense that my own thinking is more contemporary than Carter's. The world is changing. We need to be open to that. I think my candidacy stands for a renewal in the political process. If I were nominated and elected, that in itself would symbolize the vitality and energy of the country, that we were putting the era of Viet Nam and Watergate behind us and going on to work on constructive problems. But I'm not trying to oversell what I can do. Our social fabric is rather tattered. There's been a lot of flimflam. The role of the President is to describe what's possible and what isn't.

Q. What changes would you bring about that Carter would not?

A. I'm more willing to question assumptions in a more relentless way. I'm sympathetic to the critique of technology, even though I recognize that technology is the engine of a modern economy. That's the lesson of Viet Nam and the Great Society. People in the '60s felt very good about systems analysis. They missed the ability of some people to inspire others.

Q. Is that what your success boils down to--inspirational ability?

A. That's part of it. You either do it, or you don't. I try to be myself, to be fairly straightforward. There are elements of surprise and openness that people feel are very genuine. I'm trying to prepare people for difficult days ahead, while at the same time trying to inspire some hope.

Q. You have endorsed the Humphrey-Hawkins full-employment bill and national health insurance, but you talk of "lowering our expectations." Isn't there a conflict?

A. I want to get off that phrase [lowering expectations]. Overheated rhetoric ought to be deflated a bit. Humphrey-Hawkins is a symbol, a commitment. Commitments are important. Everybody wants specifics, and when you articulate them, you get clobbered.

Q. Some of your comments, your call for "a new spirit," for example, have a mystical ring.

A. What does that mean? I have to say something.

Q. How do you evaluate the impact of Maryland?

A. There is a momentum or thrust in these things. [Maryland] indicates that my campaign has potential. But I just take it one week at a time. I don't have any plan other than trying to make an impact on the Democratic Party throughout the country. The importance of timing is an axiom of politics. You can't control everything, but my course is on an ascending trajectory. Carter's has slowed.

Q. What do you have to do to push the trajectory higher?

A. The plan isn't on a computer printout. I have to keep moving. The battle now is to keep the process open. But the Tuesday primaries demonstrated that people aren't entirely satisfied with the front runner. I think the chemistry of the campaign has changed.

Q. Do you rule out the vice-presidential nomination?

A. I haven't yet, but it isn't likely.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.