Reading Between the Lines

By WALTER SHAPIRO

With surprising harmony, the Democrats all but completed drafting their platform last week. The relatively brief, 3,500-word document (the elephantine 1984 version was 40,000 words) signals a sharp break with the party's promise- them-anything past. This time there are no bold pledges to match earlier advocacy of guaranteed jobs (1972) and national health insurance (1980). Gone too is the usual laundry list of narrow causes like the 1984 vow to "eliminate ethnic stereotyping." The 1988 platform may be purposely vague, but there are hidden subtexts beneath the soporific rhetoric.

"The Restoration of Competence and Hope"

The awkward title says it all: the platform tries to meld the "competence" of Michael Dukakis with the "hope" conveyed by Jesse Jackson. "Restoration" can be seen as a small bow to the platform's author, Theodore Sorensen, who was John Kennedy's speechwriter. Sorensen's secret: exhausting run-on sentences that cleverly mask meaning with their painful paucity of verbs.

"We believe that it is time for America, within a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility . . . to . . . reinvest in its people, to invest in new priorities . . . in lifelong education and training . . . in targeted economic development . . . ((in)) rebuilt American infrastructure and public facilities."

Read invest as the new Democratic code word for spend; rarely have so many potentially budget-busting programs been separated by so little punctuation. Dukakis is the apostle of "targeted economic development," while Jackson has . stressed creating public service jobs to rebuild America's "infrastructure." The platform neglects to explain how "fiscal responsibility" might be achieved. But Jackson is likely to wage a convention floor fight on this point to insert a pledge to raise the taxes of the wealthy. Dukakis' likely response: "Go ahead, make my day."

"We believe that America needs more trade, fair trade, an administration willing . . . to better manage our trade in order to export more American goods and fewer American jobs."

Trade was the hottest issue in the early primaries, and here in one sentence are three seemingly contradictory Democratic proposals. Follow the bouncing ball from "more trade" (Dukakis) to "fair trade" (Richard Gephardt) to halting the export of "American jobs" (Jackson).

"We believe that equal access to government services, employment, housing, business enterprise and education should be assured in this multicultural society to every citizen regardless of race, sex, national origin, religion, age, handicapping condition or sexual orientation."

Some things never change, such as the Democrats' compulsion to list in encylopedic detail all the forms of bias they abhor. A safe bet: the social- science buzz word multicultural will not appear in the G.O.P. platform.

"We believe that all Americans should enjoy access to affordable, comprehensive health care . . . from well-baby care . . . to Medicare . . . ((and)) quality affordable long-term home and health care for senior citizens . . . must be a top priority."

This is one of the few parts of the platform that clearly reflect special- interest pressures. Long-term care for the elderly is a pet cause of the American Association of Retired Persons; critics claim that an A.A.R.P.-backed bill that recently failed in the House would have ultimately cost as much as $30 billion a year. Well-baby care is a sop to Jackson, who may mount a floor fight for a more explicit plank promising to double the $3.6 billion a year spent on pregnant women and infants.

"We believe ((in)) . . . encouraging the use of our vast natural gas and coal reserves while aggressively developing clean-coal technology to combat acid rain, and providing targeted new incentives for new oil and gas drilling."

From coal (Kentucky and West Virginia) to oil and gas (Texas and Louisiana), the Democrats are telegraphing their willingness to battle the G.O.P. in catering to the energy-producing South. And lest we forget, acid rain was a major issue in the New Hampshire primary.

"We believe in a clear-headed, tough-minded, decisive American foreign policy that will reflect the changing nature of threats to our security."

Those macho compound adjectives (clear-headed, tough-minded) are designed to combat the perception that Democrats are weak on foreign policy. But polls show that voters worry about foreign economic challenges as well as military ones. "The changing nature of threats to our security" reflects these fears of job loss, which Dukakis is likely to play to in the fall campaign.

"((We)) further believe that our national strength will be enhanced by more stable defense budgets."

The Jackson forces wanted to freeze Pentagon spending; they settled for what seemed an analogous promise of budget stability. But note the tricky hedge phrase "more stable." Just the difference between a totally stable defense budget and one that is adjusted for inflation could run to $30 billion over five years.

"((We)) believe that this country . . . should provide new leadership to deliver the promise of peace and security through negotiations that has been held out to Israel and its neighbors by the Camp David Accords and to Central America by the Arias Peace Plan."

Sorensen artfully skirts Democratic differences over Nicaragua and the Middle East by combining them in a confusing, parse-this-if-you-dare sentence. The divisive Palestinian problem is not even mentioned by name; it is subsumed under the geographic vagueness of "Israel and its neighbors." That is how party unity is created: with code words, vaporous rhetoric and some of the most intricate syntax since William Faulkner's.

With reporting by Michael Duffy/Denver