It's Time to Take Jesse Seriously

EVER since the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson's resounding victory in the Michigan caucuses, political pundits have been forecasting doom for the Democrats.

On the one hand, were Jackson to be the Democratic party's nominee, conventional wisdom holds that he would be a sure loser in the general election. Even to George Bush.

Indeed, despite his remarkable success this year, poll after poll shows Jackson losing to Bush. Democrats also fear that a Jackson ticket would allow the Republicans to regain control of the Senate and make substantial gains in the House.

On the other hand, any attempt at a "stop Jackson" movement, especially if it comes as a last-ditch effort at the convention, would backfire and profoundly alienate the Democratic party's most loyal constituency--the Blacks. Such an effort would weaken the eventual Democratic nominee by driving Black voters away from the polls.

"Either way it hurts," said one party elder last week, summing up the "Jackson problem" confronting the Democrats. "Down one path we have to turn our backs on everything this party has purported to stand for--and on our most loyal voting bloc. Down the other, we face certain disaster in the fall."

BUT the Jackson rising may turn out to work for the Democratic Party instead of hobbling it. Finally Jackson will be accorded the respect he deserves as a potential nominee, and his views will no longer go unchallenged.

For if Jackson is a legitimate, serious contender for--and possible winner of--his party's presidential nomination (which he certainly is), then he deserves the same respect accorded to all the other candidates. More importantly, his views, actions, and record should undergo the same intense scrutiny that his competitors do.

So far, party leaders have treated him with condescension and kid gloves. The media have asked endlessly "What does Jesse want?" And the other Democratic candidates with the exception of Al Gore even to refuse to attack his viewpoints. All this wary treatment of the Jackson candidacy reflects a subtle form of racism saying that he must be handled with care, that he cannot win the nomination no matter how high his vote totals, and that his positions therefore are not worthy of being debated.

Yet, as the current delegate count shows, Jackson has a very legitimate shot at winning the party's nomination. And it's about time that the media, Democratic party officials, and the other candidates start taking Jackson, his record, and his views seriously. As Rep. Thomas Downey (D.-N.Y.) pointed out, there's a racial double standard protecting Jackson, who has so far been given a "free ride on some very controversial issues."

Since the media felt it had the right to delve into Senator Joseph Biden's plagiarism in law school and to ridicule Rep. Dick Gephardt's record of flip-flops in the past decade, it has the responsibility to apply the same standards of scrutiny to Jackson.

FIRST and foremost, on the 20th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s death, the media should apply the spotlight to Jackson's highly controversial and debatable claim that he cradled a dying King in his arms. Coretta Scott King and other leaders of the civil rights movement still resent Jackson's actions during the days after King's death, especially his claim that the turtleneck he was wearing had the slain leader's blood on it. Does this show Jackson is an opportunistic showboat?

More recently Jackson called Zionism a "poisonous weed". In 1984, he labelled New York "hymietown", and pledged support for Louis Farrakhan, who calls Judaism a "gutter religion". No other white candidate could have gotten away with such words and actions and remained in the race. Are these the views the American people want in the presidency?

It may be racist to say that Jackson is not qualified to be President. But it is certainly not racist, just factually correct, to point out that he has never held any elective office. It is also not racist to remember that Jackson's Operation PUSH--an organization which seeks to advance minority businesses--has been the subject of government inquiries and been charged with mismanagement of federal funds. If Jackson has had such problems managing PUSH's budget, how does he plans to handle the federal budget?

The media demanded that Sen. Paul Simon explain how his fanciful public works-balanced budget plan would work. In the same vein, the media should grill Jackson on how he would finance his ambitious spending proposals, which include hugh increases in everything from education to social security to farm subsidies.

Jackson courageously has advocated increasing the tax rate for corporation and for the wealthiest Americans, has suggested withholding social security and Medicare benefits from the wealthy and has called for substantial and potentially destabilizing cuts in a host of weapons systems. But many economists, even Democratic economists, believe that this revenue will not be enough to pay for his domestic programs.

Jackson regularly professes solidarity with the oppressed workers overseas. In international trade, however, he says he will reduce the United States' trade deficit by abolishing tax incentives for American companies that build plants abroad, under the assumption that they would then reinvest in America. But such a policy would actually hurt foreing workers, since most Third World countries simply cannot afford to pay their workers American-size wages. As another Democratic economist told the Times, such restrictions would end up "destroying the only hope of the very people Jackson says he feels solidarity with."

TO his credit, Jackson has spoken more than any other candidate on the need to divest from South Africa and to wage an effective war on drugs. Yet other aspects of his foreign policy agenda remain highly suspect. Jackson says he will scrap a number of weapons systems, such as the MX, Midgetman, and Trident D-5 missiles, and two new aircraft carriers. He would also withdraw up to half of the U.S. troops stationed in Europe. Based on his support for the P L O and on his past anti-Semitic remarks, one must wonder to what extent Jackson will honor this nation's commitment to Israel, and how much he would criticize the Soviets for their treatment of Jewish refusniks.

Certainly, Jackson is the most passionate and electrifying orator among this year's presidential candidates, no tough feat indeed. But being is a passionate speaker is not the sole qualification for President. After all, avowed segregationist George Wallace once won the Michigan caucuses by employing a populist "send them a message" approach, similar to the one Jackson is using. Wallace's message sure was passionate and sure did move people. But we can all give thanks that he was not elected.

Jackson and his supporters have made the current election a referendum on racism, and have argued that a vote not cast for Jesse Jackson is a vote against civil rights, a vote against Martin Luther King's dream. But a far better test of America's progress in race relations is how the media and the political establishment treat a substantive, credible black candidate. So far, they have not lived up to that dream.