NOBODY HERE BUT US Moderates

ATLANTA — Two Democratic parties were meeting in Atlanta last week--the Old Party and the New Party. The Old Party is the party of The Cause. It is a gathering of activists renewing their commitment to civil rights, human rights, economic justice and the anti-war movement. The New Party is the party of Government. It is a gathering of problem-solvers committed to growth, reform, management and competence.

Atlanta marked the transition from ideological to post-ideological politics. The first two days of the convention were dominated by the Old Party. The sessions showcased great figures from the Democratic Party past--Edward M. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Walter F. Mondale and Jesse Jackson. What do these men have in common? They are respected and admired by Democrats. They fought the good fight. But there is a curiously dated quality to their politics. They talk of advocacy, special interests, “us” versus “them.” And they are among the most unpopular and controversial figures in U.S. politics.

Days three and four belonged to the New Party, the party of Michael S. Dukakis. To post-ideological politicians like Dukakis, issues are problems to be solved, not conflicts of interest to be reconciled. Jackson speaks the language of advocacy politics. “The good of our nation is at stake,” he said Tuesday night, “its commitment to working men and women, to the poor and the vulnerable, to the many in the world . . . . When my name goes into nomination, your name goes into nomination.”

Dukakis rarely talks like that. He speaks the language of regional economic development, centers of excellence and employment and training-choice initiatives. Instead of defending interests, he offers solutions. “It’s time to rekindle the American spirit of invention and daring,” he told the convention Thursday night. “To exchange voodoo economics for can-do economics.” Jackson speaks to Democrats’ hearts, Dukakis to their heads.

This year’s battle between Dukakis and Jackson was similar to the 1984 contest between Mondale and Gary Hart. Four years ago, Mondale was the leader of the Old Party, the advocacy politician who spoke for “special interests.” Hart was the problem-solver who wrote books about economic growth and military reform. Like Dukakis this year, Hart made no promises to special interests. His program was directed at national needs and priorities. And like Dukakis, Hart won about 5% of the black vote in the primaries.

The difference, of course, is that Dukakis won the nomination. In 1984, Mondale was the candidate of the Democratic Establishment. Hart was the insurgent. Between 1985 and 1987, the party Establishment saw the light and began lining up with Hart, the new front-runner.

When Hart disgraced himself last year, the party Establishment had no trouble finding another candidate who said the same things. Dukakis, the problem-solver, became the Establishment candidate. Jackson, the advocate, played the role of insurgent. Jackson’s victory in Michigan this year had the same effect as Hart’s New Hampshire victory four years ago; it shook up the party Establishment. And the New York primary played the same role this year as in 1984; it restored the Establishment to power.

The party Establishment wants to win, and they now know they can’t win with a liberal message. They can’t sell the Kennedy-Mondale-Jackson line. What sounds like “sharing, family, compassion and mutuality” to Democrats sounds like “taxing, spending and inflation” outside the convention hall. But they believe they can win with a problem-solver, especially one who has a reputation as a tightwad.

The widely proclaimed “unity” of the Democratic Party was an act of will. Democrats are desperate to win this election. They want to win so badly that they are burying their differences and obscuring their ideology. The word “liberal” was seldom heard in Atlanta last week: “Nobody here but us moderates.” What was heard during Dukakis’ acceptance speech were cries of “We’re gonna win!” Democrats are in no mood to take risks. If they can’t win this year, under these conditions and against George Bush, then they may as well abandon hope.

The convention was suffused with nostalgia for 1960--the last time the party held together--as opposed to the late 1960s, when the party fell apart. The emotional high point was John F. Kennedy Jr.’s appearance on the podium. The theme of this election, said keynote speaker Ann Richards, is “We can do better”--which happens to have been the theme of the 1960 J.F.K. campaign. And when Dukakis announced his choice of Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen as his running mate, he explicitly evoked the image of the 1960 Kennedy-Lyndon B. Johnson ticket.

Why 1960? After all, the Democrats barely won the election that year. But 1960 has a larger symbolic meaning to Democrats: It was the last year before the Democrats turned into a liberal party. Between 1964 and 1984, the Democrats became the party of The Cause--first civil rights, then the anti-war movement, then women’s rights. A liberal activist elite came to power. And the party spent most of those years in the political wilderness.

Bentsen is not a liberal. The choice of Bentsen tells millions of Democrats who are not liberals that they are still welcome in the party. Bentsen is not a technocrat either. He is a Tory Democrat, a remnant of the pre-ideological tradition of the Democratic Party. That tradition is associated with power barons like Sam Rayburn and Johnson. Bentsen is a party regular who heads a powerful political organization. How does he fit in with a reformer like Dukakis? Easy. They both see Democrats as a governing party, not a party of activists. Bentsen is not an ideological conservative. He is not an ideological anything. He is a pragmatist, like Dukakis. The pre-ideological tradition and the post-ideological tradition have joined forces. No wonder liberals are nervous.

The platform makes the same statement as Bentsen’s nomination: “There is no ideological test.” Instead of specific policy commitments, the platform offers general principles. Jackson complained that the platform didn’t say anything, and he had a point. But the Jackson forces were persuaded to give up or compromise most of their proposed amendments, all of which would have committed the party to a liberal position. Only two amendments were subjected to a convention vote--both lost by better than 2 to 1.

The Los Angeles Times and Cable News Network asked delegates whether they agreed with Jackson’s positions on a tax increase for the wealthy and a Palestinian homeland. They did. An ABC News-Washington Post poll asked delegates whether they wanted to amend the party platform to reflect these positions. They did not. That is clear evidence that the movement for party unity was really a willful effort to hide the Old Party.

Jackson is cooperating with the unity effort. His Tuesday night speech was entitled, “A Call to Common Ground.” “Common ground! That is the challenge to our party tonight,” he said. “Left-wing. Right-wing. Progress will not come through boundless liberalism nor static conservatism . . . . It takes two wings to fly.” Jackson was offering the support of his “wing” of the party. But he was also signaling that the Jackson movement was not going to lose its identity. The Democratic Party, he said in another metaphor, was a “patchwork quilt,” not a “blanket.”

Both the polls and the reception given to Jackson’s speech reveal that he has become the conscience of the Democrats. He says what they really believe, not what they have to say, or not say, in order to win. Jackson gave the Democratic Party’s revival speech this year--just as Edward Kennedy did in 1980 and Mario M. Cuomo did in 1984. Each defined the party’s traditions, ideals and values. The party then compromised those traditions, ideals and values by nominating someone else.

The Democrats are using their heads this year. “This election isn’t about ideology. It’s about competence,” Dukakis said in his acceptance speech Thursday night. But their hearts are still on the left. According to polls, the Democrats who met in Atlanta were no less liberal than those in San Francisco four years ago, when the party nominated Mondale and Geraldine A. Ferraro. The party has not moved right. Instead, Democrats are following a calculated strategy: “Sell management. Sell competence. But for God’s sake, don’t try to sell liberalism.”

By agreeing to support the Dukakis-Bentsen ticket, Jackson said, “Go ahead. Do it your way. I’ll do what I can to help.” But there was also another message: “This had better work.” If it doesn’t--if the problem-solvers can’t win, or if the Dukakis Administration turns out to be a failure--there is every likelihood that Democrats will go back to what they really believe in. The Old Party isn’t dead. The New Party has just asked it to hide in the closet till the guests leave.