Questioning Jesse's Credentials

FOR months, Ronald Reagan has sat in the White House, itching to enter the presidential fray. Finally this week he decided to let a partisan opinion escape his lips, irritated by the media's gentle treatment of Democratic candidate Jesse Jackson.

Reagan's point is a valid one. Not only does the press refuse to closely analyze the Jackson candidacy, it seems to be conspiring to make Jackson into an overnight sensation.

Who is Jesse Jackson? Why does he think he deserves to be president? The press answers with eliches when we want facts.

How is it possible that a major candidate can remain unknown despite more than four years of media attention? For example, the media frequently does no more than gloss over the fact that Jackson has never held an elected office before. Yet if Jackson receives the nomination for either president or vice president, his lack of political credentials will be almost unique in modern U.S. politics.

Only twice since the Second World War has a major party nominated someone who had never held the position of governor, president, vice president, U.S. senator, or U.S. representative.

The last time this happened was in 1972 when Sargent Shriver ran on George McGovern's Democratic ticket against President Richard Nixon. Shriver had never held elected office before.

But before you prop up the Shriver case as a precedent to a Jackson nomination, there are some facts to consider. Shriver received the nod from McGovern only after his initial running mate, Senator Thomas Eagleton, had been forced to withdraw his name. Reporters had discovered that Eagleton had received shock treatments for emotional disorders.

Also, although Shriver had never been elected to an office before, he had demonstrated his political and administrative experience as Kennedy's director of the Peace Corps, an aide to Johnson, and Ambassador to France.

Jackson supporters who hope to use the Shriver example might also consider the fate of the McGovern-Shriver ticket--it lost by the biggest landslide vote in presidential history.

The only other time a nominee had never held an elected office before was in 1952. Yes, Dwight Eisenhowever had never held an elected office before he ran successfully for president in 1952.

HOWEVER. Jackson doesn't stack up very well in a comparison with Eisenhower, lke was a tremendously popular and well-known war hero who had demonstrated his administrative abilities--first as the commander of the allied troops in the European Theater during World War II, and later as head of NATO troops.

Jackson, on the other hand, has repeatedly shown his lack of administrative ability. His Operation PUSH in Chicago was notoriously disorganized, as was his 1984 campaign. His 1988 effort is only marginally better.

The press interprets Jackson's improved electoral success in 1988 as the sign of a new Jackson--one who has broadened his appeal to poor whites and liberal yuppies. Or so the story goes.

In fact, Jackson's success is more the result of a different field of Democratic challengers. In 1984 Walter Mondale was the favorite son of the Democratic Party--he had served as vice president for four years. He had been an influential legislator in the Congress. He had strongly supported civil rights legislation. His appeal to the Blacks and poorer whites was as strong, if not stronger, than Jackson's.

In 1988, there are no challengers to Jackson in his natural political bases. He is by far the most liberal of the serious candidates, so it is logical that some liberal yuppies and poorer whites will vote for him. Indeed, Dukakis and Gore are trying to make themselves appear more moderate so as to attract conservative Democrats.

Neither Dukakis, Gore, nor any of the has-beens can reproduce Mondale's special appeal to Blacks. Their particular needs, and the fact that only Jackson addresses them, explains much of his success this year.

Despite these facts, the press continues to establish a Jackson myth. Although the facts show that Jackson is no more qualified to be president than he was in 1984, we are forced to read stories of a Jackson candidacy that must be taken seriously. Jesse Jackson is the same man, with the same lack of credentials, he was in 1984. Too many unanswered questions remain.