The Political Interest

By Michael Kramer

IN 1980, WHEN HE HELPED RONALD REAGAN SNATCH the White House from Jimmy Carter, Jim Baker summed up his view of presidential politics in two words -- "reasonable doubt." As an attorney -- and he was one of the best when he practiced law for a living -- Baker has always been charmed by courtroom analogies. "At the presidential level," he explained, "the stakes are so high, and are seen as so high by the voters, that the trick is to cause people to view your opponent as somehow 'guilty,' as being unfit for the top. Especially if you're the incumbent, if you create just a reasonable doubt about the challenger, he's convicted."

Fast-forward 12 years, and Baker's strategy is on full display. That it has so far failed miserably says nothing about the final outcome, and Ross Perot offers one last chance for success. Consider the state of play till now and what the nation will probably see this month -- on television, on the stump and especially in the debates. To date, none of the attacks on Bill Clinton's character have stuck. Voters' fears about the economy have outlasted the mud. "We have absolutely no credibility on domestic matters," concedes a Bush aide, "and Clinton is seen as Reagan, as a guy who knows where he wants to go even if all the details don't compute exactly. That's why he's leading; that's why we're headed for exile."

Given that, the G.O.P. game plan is easily understood: create a reasonable doubt about Clinton's domestic prescriptions and hope that he is eventually perceived as having no more of a clue than Bush. Then, perhaps, the election can turn on character, on a determination that Clinton is too flawed a personality to serve as a moral role model.

The first step in this process is already visible. In his speeches and in his television ads, the President is relentlessly hitting Clinton as a "tax and spend" liberal of the old school. A top Clinton adviser says the charge is resonating "mildly" and admits it "doesn't much matter" that Bush's ads shamelessly distort the Democrat's proposals. (The latest Republican commercial predicts disastrous tax increases for several average Americans, dubious calculations that senior adviser Charles Black lamely defends as legitimate because the spot claims "only" that such horrors "could" occur, not that they necessarily will.) Bush's team professes delight with Clinton's reflexive counterpunch -- a series of ads that slam the President's fiscal record. "We're already dead meat on the economy," says a Republican operative. "He can't put us in the hole any deeper. He hasn't closed his sale. He's still new in the public's mind. He should be taking the high road, putting out his vision, fleshing out the hope people think he offers. Attacking us wastes his money and detracts from his positive message."

Enter Ross Perot, a paranoid hoist by his own self-regard who could nonetheless end up as Bush's secret weapon. Most observers are focusing on the state-by-state matchups -- whom Perot will hurt more in which key states, a crystal-ball exercise whose only safe conclusion at this point is that Perot hurts either Clinton or Bush or both or neither. Meanwhile, Baker & Co. believe that victory requires blowing the current campaign dynamic across the board; surgical strikes won't do. "If Clinton fractures anywhere, he will fracture everywhere," says a Bush campaign official. "Perot serves that possibility because even though he's crazy, on the economy he's considered a straight-shooting truth teller. Of all the potential third-party nuisances we could think of, Perot alone has the standing to describe both of our economic plans as pain-free nonsense -- which is fine by us. Please, Ross, tar us both."

Perot will of course play this role with relish. It's his only card, the ticket to rehabilitating his reputation. A few Republicans are fretting (Perot's an "egotistical pest," says former Education Secretary Bill Bennett), but the party's big guns are smartly encouraging Perot to follow his instincts: "If Ross Perot's re-entry puts even more focus on the federal deficit," says Senator Bob Dole, "it will be a plus for everyone . . ." Thus, in the debates, Bush will defend his record, but he will gladly take the hit as long as Perot swipes equally at Clinton, which he is bound to do. As Clinton strikes back, he and Perot could descend into an unfathomable numbers war about growth stimulants and deficit philosophy, permitting Bush to portray both men as simply too willing to raise taxes -- an attack that could force Clinton to defend his plan with a few thousand academically sound but mind-boggling words reminiscent of Mark Twain's crack about Wagner's music: "It's better than it sounds."

The final step? "After the debates, we have the last two weeks to blitz Clinton on the character stuff," says a Bush strategist. "It's desperate, but it's coherent, and if Ross performs as expected, it hangs together theoretically." Call it what Baker called it -- reasonable doubt. As Bush aide Robert Mosbacher said some months ago, all the President needs on Election Day is to be considered "the lesser of three evils."