The Anderson Deference

MULTIPLYING on campuses from Cambridge to Madison, the big red-and-white buttons glint like badges of honor. They attest to the wearer's rare intellectual discernment in recognizing the merit of Rep. John B. Anderson (R-Ill.). The Anderson fan knows he is showing unusual judgement and independent-mindedness because every major media commentator has told him so. Numerous quotations from favorable reviews decorate the Illinois Republican's leaflets as if they were ads for a new movie or bestseller; one expects to read, "compelling... I couldn't put him down'--James Reston" or "the sleeper of the season...****'--Joseph Kraft."

When these commentators try to gauge whether Anderson's support is a "movement" that might fire an independent race after the GOP rejects him, they sometimes compare student enthusiasm for him to past surges for former Senator Eugene McCarthy and Sen. George S. McGovern (D--S.D.). But in the absence of a burning emotional issue like Vietnam, the Anderson campaign is distinguished less by moral fervor than by intellectual smugness. There is a second anti-draft candidate today, but the attention he attracts is due too much to the magic of his name with the sub-rational masses, while Anderson's charm lies in a novel new variety of common sense which, we are led to believe, is best appreciated by the elite.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy may be the more consistent liberal, but some of Kennedy's natural constituents, have been won over by Anderson's superior facility in articulating answers to questions offered by respectful reporters. Besides, a fleeting appearance on Saturday Night Live and a starring role in Doonesbury have helped legitimize on campuses the improbable phenomenon of moderate-chic. Above all, an unseemly air of sordidness stalks the Massachusetts Democrat. John B. Anderson, if you please, is in good taste. Unhappily for him, this quality is not sufficient to infuse his candidacy with the messianic sense of mission an independent campaign needs to take off.

A platform of unconventional but straight-forward ideas might do the trick, however, and it is as the generator of just such original notions that the press hails Anderson. This image had been nurtured by, among other, The New York Times, which--since its near-endorsement January 13--has boosted him when it can, choosing the day of the Massachusetts primary to print the text of his basic speech with a picture of him campaigning in Boston. From its feature headlined "Anderson: Bartering Ideas for Votes" to the Tom Wicker column, "Idea Man From Illinois," the theme is the same. Oddly enough, the fresh ideas writers generally cite to bear out the thesis can be counted on the thumbs of one hand: the 50-50 gas tax plan. Otherwise, Anderson's campaign is rather unimaginative. Even the slogans are remarkably unoriginal: "Why Not the Best?" is borrowed from the incumbent, and "The Anderson Difference" echoes a commercial for Anacin.

BUT ANDERSON is no pain reliever. HE prides himself on demanding the American people sacrifice in order to overcome a "vile and ruthless enemy": what he calls "our excessive dependence on foreign oil." After tediously elaborating the magnitude of this familiar threat, he finally presents his one bold idea; one which also belies his reputation for Emersonian "common sense and plain dealing." On the face of it, raising further the price of gasoline is an approach to energy-induced inflation that has little in common with common sense. Since the idea is not down-to-earth, Anderson is forced to appeal to an academic galaxy of stars from Harvard, Stanford, M.I.T., Wharton, Princeton, Georgetown, Michigan, even "Michael Evans of Evans Economics" himself...it is a crowded stump speech.

Anderson's tax package is an intricate scheme rather than plain dealing; the convoluted economic reasoning behind it falls apart under examination. To offset the impact of higher gas prices, on the cost of living, the plan would return most of the revenue to consumers through Social Security tax cuts and increases in benefits for the elderly. Certainly, if the government taxed the consumer 50 cents for every gallon and then gave the same consumber back 50 cents for every gallon he purchased, and if the consumer then used the 50 cents to pay for the tax, the net effect would be nil--not only on inflation, but on conservation. As Anderson explains, "The whole object of the exercise would be to make people drive less and use their money for other things." In other words, more money would chase these "other things," amounting to still another inflationary impulse. This new problem would be alleviated if the production of other things rose commensurately because of the tax credits Anderson would give business. But he is counting on these merely to "offset the higher cost of motor fuel" so that "companies would not have to pass the 50-cent fuel tax on to consumers in the form of higher prices." Companies won't have to pass on higher costs, but if they can, they will. The upshot: yet one more twist in the inflationary spiral.

While Anderson's program at least tries to help the retired and working people it hurts, it does nothing for the unemployed. Plain-speaking Sen. Sam Hayakawa (D-Cal.) was castigated for saying that the poor don't need to drive to work, not having jobs; Anderson implicitly makes the same assumption. Gasoline rationing would be the most fair and direct approach to short-run conservation--true plain dealing.

In its "Why Not the Best?" editorial, The New York Times notes, "Edward Kennedy contends that America can conserve its way out of the noose, with tax credits and subsidies for insulation and energy savings. Such policies would help--eventually. But what about the three or five or more years until then?" Kennedy's answer, of course, is a combination of rationing and price controls. This program has the advantage of guaranteeing results. The best evidence that Anderson's plan wouldn't achieve its conservation goals is that he is promoting the same size tax now as gas heads toward $1.50 a gallon that he did last year when it was $1.00 a gallon.

ANDERSON'S OPPOSITION to price controls on oil is dictated by an attitude toward business interests that might be called "the Anderson deference." In this respect, he is no different from the other Republicans. At the end of his basic speech he acknowledges that in the future, "our best bet is conservation through more fuel-efficient cars, homes and factories. Conservation in its truest sense does not even have to mean sacrifice; it can actually save us money." Accomplishing the desirable levels of efficiency in transportation, construction and industry is out of the hands of the average consumer. But Anderson's conservative reluctance to let the federal government spend money on massive programs or mandate standards for business prevents him from advocating the steps necessary to what he realizes is the only long-run solution. Like Jimmy Carter, he is therefore reduced to asking sacrifices of those who are already sacrificing.

Anderson is indeed a liberal Republican. Rather than pushing him to the far right, his Evangelical Christianity has brought him an admirable sensitivity expressed in his valuable efforts on behalf of civil rights and freedom of choice. He has spoken out forcefully on the Equal Rights Amendment, prayer in schools and gun control.

But Anderson upholds business interests on the issues most important to them. He says he endorses "a shelter for capital gains with a credit on gross income, and permitting a more rapid acceleration of depreciation on capital spending." His tireless support of nuclear power includes a vote as recent as last year to continue the plutonium breeder program. He has voted against consumer interests in oil price controls, the Consumer Protection Agency and the Consumer Cooperative Bank. Labor he has opposed by voting to cut back the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and to deny black lung benefits to coal miners, food stamps to the families of strikers and extension of the minimum wage law to nearly a million retail and service employees. Labor also hasn't profitted from his votes against common-situs picketing and labor law reform.

Anderson has stood up well to Carter's most recent war rhetoric, but when his vote for the neutron bomb is added to his pro-business record, it is clear why the Republicans have tolerated Anderson as their House Conference Chairman and why the Chicago Tribune endorsed him as a candidate in harmony with modern conservatism." Less evident is why, especially after an unimpressive showing in Wisconsin yesterday, Anderson should contemplate an eveutual independent campaign. His ideas simply are not distinctive enough; he is squarely in the mainstream of American party politics. Missing is the kind of ideological justification present in the campaigns of Henry Wallace to the left or George to the right.

Because "the Anderson difference" is not all that different from a traditional moderate stance, the media may pay him more respect then they traditionally accord independents. For this reason Anderson may be tempted to take the plunge and for the same reason he should hold back: he wouldn't win, but he might throw the election to former California Gov. Ronald Reagan.