No More Double-Standard for Jackson : Race Issue Must Not Get in Way of Need for Tough Scrutiny

Democratic presidential hopeful Albert Gore, justifying his blunt criticism of Jesse Jackson’s foreign-policy stance, declared, “There is no reason that Jackson should be treated differently than anyone else.”

The fact that such a statement is newsworthy--and is even considered courageous--helps explain the mess in which the Democratic Party finds itself.

For months the white aspirants for the Democratic nomination have cut and slashed at each other. But they did not subject Jackson to the same treatment. Nor did the national media.

This enabled Jackson to adopt a “presidential” stance. It also helped white voters to see him in non-threatening terms and, as a consequence, to listen to his message.

Jackson’s strong showing on Super Tuesday was seen as enhancing his potential as a power broker at the Democratic convention. But most political analysts saw Michael Dukakis’ nomination as all but inevitable.

Then came Illinois, where Jackson ran second to Paul Simon but dealt Dukakis a stunning defeat. The big shock wave came in Michigan, where Jackson got 55% of the vote to 28% for Dukakis.

Suddenly it became obvious that Jackson could go to the convention with more delegates than anybody else--a prospect that left party leaders in near panic.

Their anguish springs not so much from racist impulses as cool calculation.

The Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 of the past 20 years, and Democrats are tired of losing. Jackson has not only won the near-solid support of black voters, but has also done well among affluent liberals. In some states, including Michigan, he has made strong inroads into the white blue-collar vote.

But political analysts calculate that, if Jackson were the Democratic candidate, he would have to get 30% of the white vote to win. Those votes just aren’t there.

A recent poll showed that Jackson is viewed favorably by 44% of all Democrats, but gets favorable ratings from only 22% of independents and 13% of Republicans. Among all voters, the poll showed more than half disinclined to vote for Jackson under any circumstances.

The party’s dilemma, if Jackson does go to the convention as front-runner, was summed up by one party elder: “We’d have a choice of turning our backs on Jesse and alienating the blacks, or nominating him and almost certainly losing in November.”

If Jackson does arrive in Atlanta with more delegates than Dukakis, he can hardly be denied the nomination. But the convention is still several major primaries away, and his momentum could fade.

A lot depends upon whether Jackson finally comes under the critical examination that is the usual lot of candidates who move up front--and if that scrutiny develops, how he handles it.

There are, after all, plenty of respectable reasons to question Jackson’s suitability for the nation’s highest office. If the candidacy of Republican Pat Robertson raises questions about separation of church and state, so does Jackson’s.

Jackson has no experience in government, and has never run any organization larger than PUSH, his ghetto-uplift operation that has suffered from muddled management. He has never been much on details; his strong suit is aspiration. But the Oval Office is not just a pulpit. President Reagan’s unfortunate experience shows that managerial competence is important, too.

Jackson has been on the mark with his attacks on “merger maniacs” and “corporate barracudas,” and his demands for help for farmers and workers who are displaced by cold market forces. Dukakis has been forced to incorporate a populist tone into his own campaign.

However, Jackson has been woefully short on details about how he would pay for his social programs. And his ideas on foreign policy and national security are to the left of the American mainstream.

If Jackson’s rivals had subjected him to the same tough scrutiny that they accorded each other, one or two things would have happened: Either his responses would have been unconvincing, thereby damaging his prospects, or he would have withstood the scrutiny with his reputation enhanced.

Either way the party would have been better off and the outlook for racial harmony improved. Now it may be too late.

Democratic politicians are finding it difficult to shake the fear that criticizing a black will be construed as racist.

Dukakis, asked what made him more qualified than Jackson, declined to say.

Simon has dipped his toe into the water with TV commercials gently challenging Jackson’s foreign-policy credentials.

But when asked why he had hesitated to criticize Jackson, his response was predictable: “You have to be careful. You don’t want to be perceived as anti-black.” The double standard deprives the American people of information to which they are entitled before choosing a President. And, it smacks of a condescending assumption that even a gifted black leader like Jackson is incapable of holding his own in the rough-and-tumble of Democratic debate.