"I'm One of You"

By WALTER ISAACSON

In the lame-duck days of the Roman Empire, barbarian tribes frequently jostled one another as they trundled across the Eurasian landmass. Sometimes the stronger would displace the weaker, sometimes they would wage war among themselves, and occasionally there was a process of cooperation and mutual assimilation. And so it has been with the various factions that seek to control the turf of America's political parties. New tribes wander in and displace older ones, struggling every now and then to capture the soul of their party. Only rarely does a leader come along who can smother factional rivalries and give definition to a party through the force of his own presence.

Franklin Roosevelt was such a leader, forging the coalition that became the modern Democratic Party. Ronald Reagan is another. For almost eight years, he has defined both parties: a disparate array of Republicans became Reaganauts all, and true Democrats of various stripes united as resisters of the revolution.

Now both parties must find their post-Reagan souls. The task is not easy, as their rebirth pains show. Last week the foolish notion that this could largely be sorted out by 400,000 voters in Iowa and New Hampshire was dispelled. As both parties head South, it seems likely that their infighting will continue until voters in the 48 other states get their say.

The gauzy morning-in-America aura of the Reagan regime has been characterized by a willful failure to face fiscal realities. The resulting budget and trade deficits constrict the ideas and visions that candidates might see fit to offer. Though the nation knows in its gut that it is time to move beyond the feel-good pap that Reagan offered, it is not ready to bestow popularity on those who call for realistic prescriptions. Last week Bruce Babbitt discovered that sad truth. So did Robert Dole, whose sin was taking the sensible position that he would not rule out all tax increases.

Reagan's fade from the landscape he once dominated reveals the factionalism that riddles both parties. It is reflected in what has become the strange and somewhat tribal rallying cry inscribed on the banners of the 1988 campaign: HE'S ONE OF US. For some, the message is mainly regional: Michael Dukakis grandly quaffing a mug of clam chowder upon landing in New Hampshire from Iowa, as he tried to overcome the aloof smugness that seems plastered to his face; Albert Gore whistling Dixie while he waited for Super Tuesday.

But when Dole said that Iowa voters should "think of Bob Dole as one of us," he was referring not just to his regional proximity but to the hardscrabble heritage he shares with many of them. It was a matter of class, of culture, of sects, of tribes. The phrase revealed the bitter resentments against people like George Bush that seem to reverberate in Dole's dark inner soul. Bush, the quasi-New Englander, tried to usurp the "I'm one of you" line when his campaign moved to New Hampshire. But from his mouth it sounded a bit silly; one thing Bush is not, no matter how many forklift trucks he is photographed driving, is a man of the people.

Richard Gephardt has been wondrously able to transform himself from a Washington insider to a tribal populist. He speaks of the battle in us-vs.- them terms, casting himself as a crusader against the very same thems he was once proud to be a part of. For others, the message has cultural underpinnings: Pat Robertson identifying himself with God's elect, Jesse Jackson with the disaffected.

One of the subtleties of the old nominating process was that it used to reward candidates who could bring together coalitions and unify various wings and sects of the party. In order to get to the top of the ticket, a contender had to show broad-based appeal to a variety of bosses and tribal groups. But these days the process is so long and so many people run that it rewards those who can arouse the sectarian resentments or cater to the particular demands of fervent factions, notes Political Scientist Nelson Polsby.

Without Reagan to subsume them all into one fold, Republicans show signs of splintering into four of their old tribes: the country-club and Wall Street establishment, the Main Street heartland conservatives, the Religious Right and the fervent disciples of supply side. Reagan in 1984 could be claimed "one of us" by all of these groups. But this time, each has its own standard-bearer: Bush, Dole, Robertson or Kemp.

Likewise the Democrats show signs of splintering into post-Reagan tribes (though as is their wont they do not line up neatly behind one candidate). There are the impassioned populists, which is what Gephardt recently decided he would become. There is the party's Washington establishment, dedicated to whittling away at Reaganism by deft compromises, which is what Gephardt belonged to until his self-reinvention. He was also once associated with the Atari Democrats, though Dukakis now might have more of a claim to that half- forgotten label. The old-fashioned liberals have Paul Simon to carry their banner, at least until it becomes clear that there are not quite enough of them. Jackson splinters away not only blacks but a mini-rainbow of alienated voters. And now that Gephardt no longer lays claim to the party's moderate and neoliberal sects, Gore hopes to fill that role.

Perhaps the only worthy New Idea that Gary Hart contributed this time around was the quaint notion, Let the people decide. In his case they did, decisively. The people of New Hampshire and Iowa also rendered verdicts on Babbitt, whose graceful exit showed him to be a class act to the very end; Pete du Pont, who was never all that convincing as a right-winger; and Alexander Haig, who was never all that convincing as someone who should be in charge.

But the most striking decision by the people of Iowa and New Hampshire was, in effect, to let the people in the rest of the country decide too. Unlike 1980, when the seven-man Republican field was pretty much winnowed to Reagan and Bush by Iowa and New Hampshire, or 1984, when an eight-man Democratic field was virtually reduced to Hart and Mondale, this time the winnowing has been meager.

As a result, the two nominees may be chosen not because of such peripheral factors as media-fueled momentum but because they did the best at winning delegates from all corners of the country. Not only would this widen the process of groping toward a post-Reagan consensus, it would also be the best way to reduce the tribalism and factionalism that now infect both parties.

With reporting by Laurence I. Barrett/Manchester