Yapping From The Right

By WALTER SHAPIRO

When the Democrats held their first debate, in July, there were signs of opening-night nervousness: Albert Gore mangled the name of President James Polk, and Bruce Babbitt bobbed and weaved in his chair like a young Muhammad Ali. Last week it was the Republicans' turn to face William Buckley's Firing Line. From the moment the G.O.P. six-pack strode onto the Houston stage, all visual cues suggested that they were indeed different from their Democratic counterparts. They seemed reassuringly familiar, more experienced, older and collectively radiated -- to borrow one of Buckley's Latinisms -- gravitas.

One should not underestimate this image advantage, especially after a kickoff debate in which George Bush finally proved he was indeed up for the '80s. The Vice President displayed a spark and a spunk that many doubted he possessed. After Pete du Pont questioned Bush's principles, Bush counterpoked with a derisiveness that extended to his rival's pet issue and little-used first name. "Pierre, let me help you on some of this," he said. "I think it's a nutty idea to fool around with the Social Security system." Moments later, Bush was holding his own in a finger-pointing exchange with Alexander Haig. Even when Haig blurted out the word wimp, Bush managed to convey that he was, in fact, in charge here.

But the Republicans' command of the medium was counterbalanced by the weakness of their message. The Democrats are ridiculed as the party of litmus- test politics, bowing to the pressures of peace activists, labor unions, minority groups and feminists. But last week's debate revealed the degree to which the Republicans are tugged by their own special interests: right-wing red hots. Front Runners Bush and Robert Dole found themselves pitted against a field of yapping underdogs, each catering to causes championed by conservative activists. Haig, du Pont, Jack Kemp and Pat Robertson all blasted Bush's ardent support for the proposed medium-range missile treaty; this attempt to score points by implying that Ronald Reagan may be soft on the Soviets showed * the strong pull exerted by the party's right wing. The conservative tide was so fierce that at one point Dole felt compelled to declare, "The Government is here to stay."

Reagan was once strong enough to keep the party's competing right-wing factions under one tent. But Bush and Dole lack his infectious appeal. As a result, each of their challengers is trying to capitalize on different touchstones of the "True Believers." Kemp is the fervent supply-sider, du Pont the apostle of free markets and Haig of standing tough and tall in the world. Perhaps most significant is Robertson's role as the Republican Jesse Jackson. The televangelist was never challenged on any of his debate statements, even when he claimed that the lost earnings of aborted fetuses could save the Social Security system, or that he would balance the budget by "cutting waste and mismanagement." Like the Democrats with Jackson, the G.O.P. contenders could only respond to a symbolic candidacy with slavish praise; Kemp gushed, "The Republican Party ought to thank Pat Robertson for bringing in evangelical Christians and Democrats."

Ideology is only part of the Republican message problem. Despite his forcefulness in Houston, Bush failed to articulate a compelling rationale for his candidacy. Far more glaring was Dole's discomfort with any substantive discussion, save for his mantra-like promises to provide "strong leadership." The danger is that Bush and Dole, in swatting away the far more ideological underdogs, will each be viewed as fitting the description from Henry Adams' 1880 novel, Democracy: "He had . . . a statesmanlike contempt for philosophical politics. He loved power, and he meant to be President. That was enough."W.S.