Reshaping Mondale

"A VOTE FOR anyone but Mondale is a vote for Reagan," has become a frequent rallying cry among Democrats this year, a cry which has played no small role in boosting the former Vice-president to his current front-runner status. But if Mondale's success is to be lasting, it must hinge upon more than common opposition to the current Administration. Unfortunately, Mondale has by and large turned a deaf ear on the constituency that could help him most--the rejuvenated Democratic alliance.

Four years ago the general election seemed the same old game of choice between a ridiculous absolute and a laughable mediocrity. One felt that one's best comment was no comment at all, to vote for John Anderson was to cry boredom at the whole political system, and indeed the country itself cried boredom. Twenty-five percent of the country went of the polls in 1980, and Ronald Reagan's much touted "mandate" was a laughable eighth of the country. But in a sense, Ronald Reagan may be the best thing that's happened to American politics since the depression.

Four years ago, Black political power seemed out to lunch, women were entrenched in the difficulties of ERA. This year, however, both women and Blacks promise to be an effective vocal and voting force in the election--particularly. Blacks who now boast mayors in a large number of major U.S. cities. Four years ago Reaganites harnessed religious and monetary fundamentalists, the former of whom had never really had a hand in American politics and the latter of whom had been in disarray since the days of President Coolidge. But this year a new group of fundamentalists promises to have an important hand in opposing Reagan. That is, a new constituency of democratically minded citizens who, one hopes, will nay say Reagan's flagrant disregard for the spirit of the welfare state and the rights of free speech in America.

Even with a large slate of Democratic candidates however it remains unclear who if anyone best embodies the true values of the Democratic Party.

HOWEVER RISKY IT may seem, it is important not only to beat Ronald Reagan this year, but also to defeat the Democratic dead-letter, to make sure that the Democratic candidate for president represents what the country needs and demands. When a CBS/New York Times poll last week showed Rowans critical and/worried about the president's economic and foreign policies, it became clear that, in addition to Black and female anger, there was also a widespread undercurrent of doubt about the president's success. This, then, is emphatically not a year for liberals to turn inside themselves and assume that there is nothing they can do or say that will effect that great sleeping giant, the American electorate. There are demands out there that need to be focused and the center of that focus, it seems, ought to be Walter Mondale.

Currently Mondale is a morass of promises and, as he appeared in a recent cartoon, seems deliriously wrapped up in the dance of making them. He seems neither a man with a vision nor a man with clearly delineated ideas, but some of his colleagues are. Not Mr. Glenn, indeed, who seems bent on arguing with the former vice-president about past records, but the other six. Many joke that these contenders are fighting for the pointless position of second place, but that position is anything but pointless in a primary. Coming in first is only important on election day; before that date, all candidates have a chance to shape the issues of the campaign.

The onus on Mondale this year is to make concessions to the formidable plans of his colleagues: he must satisfy the demands of the Black and the poor that Jackson represents; he must answer to the demands for nuclear control that his colleague Senator Cranston is demanding; and he must turn his attention to the budgetary statements of Hollings. Hollings has interpreted the long term strategy of Reagan's deficits as nothing less than the deliberate crippling of the Welfare state.

Finally, Mondale must do more than listen to the demands of the much touted gender and minority gaps; he must select either a Black or a female running-mate. Only by paying attention to these demands will Mondale rally a populist coalition. If he succeeds, it will be an alliance with history and established legitimacy much stronger than any of the religious and hard-right minorities that elected the present president in the apathetic year of 1980.

That is why it is important to cast a vote for a candidate with ideas in the upcoming primary. When McGovern cut short a shouting match between Mondale and Glenn about each other's past records in a recent New Hampshire debate, demanding that those candidates cease arguing about each other and start arguing about the issues, he did so correctly. With the support he has, Mondale seems destined to win in July, but he will be a longshot in November if he does not learn from the reinvigorated Democratic coalition.

BUT IT SEEMS clear, given Mondale's recent attacks on the Reagan administration that he will stick to the easy marks: the policies of the Republicans and the blusterings of his colleague the astronaut. That is why a vote for Jackson, a vote for Hollings, Cranston or even Hart or McGovern, not to mention Askew, is a vote that matters in the long run. Mondale must fight for his own electorate in order to beat. The Great Communicator, for at the moment, a vote for Mondale still seems a vote for Carter. And both because it will not beat Reagan and because of the legacy of the Democratic doldrums, that is a very dangerous vote.