Substance Over Style

MAYBE ABE LINCOLN wasn't really born in a log cabin, but he certainly wasn't rich, or even middle-class. And he became president--while in the 1990's, Bob Kerrey and Paul Tsongas couldn't even afford to hang on until the Democratic Convention.

Call it trite--that old "American Dream" of rags to riches, which (like most political ideals) was probably always more of a dream than a reality. Though the cliche may not accurately describe the workings of America's economy, it embodies certain democratic values--like the openness of the political system to all worthy individuals regardless of their class background--values which are so engrained in the American character that every candidate still feels obliged to pay lip service to them even when they are less of a reality than ever.

The presidential primaries' emphasis on style over substance too often weeds out candidates who can't afford expensive public relations campaigns, and allows the more well-heeled survivors to repackage themselves as men of the people.

Is it any wonder the last few administrations have been insensitive to the poor, when successful presidential candidates must either be wealthy themselves or pander to rich special interest groups in order to survive the campaign process?

TSONGAS' RECENT LOSS to Bill Clinton is a case in point. Clinton is an upper middle class, Ivy League-trained politician, and also a frequent guest at an all-white country club whose dues are $20,000 a year. Yet his professional PR consultants (including the producers of Designing Women) had successfully turned him into the blue-collar candidate--until Jerry Brown took over that image--while the comparatively less affluent Tsongas was pegged as the representative of Brie and squash courts.

In addition, skillful media handling has enabled Clinton's campaign to survive revelations that would have derailed many another candidate's career. One cannot underestimate the role of the media in establishing and maintaining Clinton's status as front-runner despite his alleged financial and marital indiscretions.

But it would be all too easy to give up and say that only expensive PR campaigns matter to the voters any more. Tsongas' success in the Northeast showed that people are ready for an end to the hype. Jerry Brown's lowbudget campaign has filled the void Tsongas left behind. The Connecticut primary resulted in a one percentage point difference between Brown and Clinton, and polls indicate that there would have been a majority for Tsongas had he not quit. Showy packaging isn't everything--yet.

Kerrey and Tsongas did the voters a disservice when they dropped out of the race. If they had stayed in and conducted less expensive no-frills campaigns--as Tsongas did at the start--they might have helped shift the focus of the electoral process from images to ideas. Instead, Kerrey blew all his money on PR, and even Tsongas attempted to fight on Clinton's terms. This just reinforced the destructive notion that the race is to the slick.

Moreover, there was a chance (at least for Tsongas) that the "uncandidate" approach might have won out. The Connecticut primary, and possibly the upcoming New York primary, could have made him a serious contender again despite his defeat in the South. But now the public perception that you have to be rich (or have rich friends) to be president is stronger than ever, adding to the growing disillusionment among American voters.

IN A TIME OF economic crisis, when the country awakens with a hangover from the feel-good '80's, candidates who spend too much money advertising themselves arouse many people's suspicions. However, if less affluent candidates accept the system as it is, they end up spending all their money on insufficient PR and then dropping out, a form of Darwinian natural selection of the rich and famous that leaves the voters no choice but to support a style-over-substance candidate because he's the only one left.

It's time for the less wealthy presidential hopefuls to stop disappointing the voters and to make the most of who they are, glamorous or not. Jerry Brown's unstylish style may set a good example in this respect, whether or not he has the other elements of a good president. At least he believes that the Oval Office doesn't have to be the playground of the upper classes.