Personality Over Platform

I didn't watch the presidential debate on Sunday night. I felt bad about it at first--as though I wasn't interested enough in the issues, as though I didn't care enough about national events.

But then I read the papers on Monday morning and talked to people who had seen the debate, and I remembered why I hadn't cared so much in the first place.

It seems to me a waste of time to watch the two candidates plug their platforms, when the issues have faded in the face of the campaign's personality contest.

Yes, the issues are there. No one can deny that Vice President George Bush and Gov. Michael Dukakis are diametrically opposed on almost any topic of immediate or long-range consequence, from abortion to Star Wars.

But, as the campaign plods wearily on, it seems as though the issues have become caricatures of themselves, grossly expanding to support the view of Dukakis as the quintessential impractical liberal or Bush as the rational conservative. What seems to matter more is appearance--which candidate can bring more laughs, which can hold his own in verbal battles, which loves his wife more than the other.

The issues have lost ground in the campaign because there are few ideological battles left. People who hold an opinion on either side of any of the most gripping controversies in a campaign, like abortion, the death penalty or aid to the contras, are firm in their ideology--and thus in their presidential choice. Most people simply won't vote for a leader who disagrees with their stand on an issue basic to their view of the world.

Yet, paradoxically enough, the policy differences between the two candidates are so clear-cut that they have been rendered less relevant.

If voters have made up their mind on heartfelt issues, they are unlikely to shift away from the candidate that takes their side, no matter how much more eloquently the opposition is presented.

In a TV spot this summer about the campaign, one woman said, "I'm just going to vote for Dukakis because of his stand on abortion, but I really don't see much difference between the two."

Voters who are not set in their convictions about basic issues are fair game for the current campaign strategies. Those people are left to base their decision on more superfluous factors, and unfortunately, these factors have become the focus in the current contest.

What won points for Bush and Dukakis in Sunday's debate was probably not their hard core stands on matters of ideological import. The people who are affected by those stands effectively cast their votes long ago. The candidates' ability to banter and cast stones was what won them any of the votes still up for grab.

Dukakis' Joe Isuzu crack probably pulled in more kudos than his defense of government-supported housing programs. Bush's comment that Dukakis' reply was "about as clear as Boston Harbor" probably garnered him more votes than his plug for the MX Missile. It's no wonder, really. Everyone loves someone who can make him laugh. And since Dukakis has long been criticized for his lack of passion, he could only stand to gain from demonstrating an ability to quip and snicker.

This turns the campaign into a farce. The candidates, bowled over by the weight of their own differences, trade barbs like children. The public, having already passed judgement on the issues, sucks up rumors of flag-burning and psychological trouble, and eagerly awaits the next low-hitting punch from one candidate to the other.

Uncertain voters will be impressed by the barbs, the laughs and the cutting retorts or maybe by which candidate is better able to keep his cool. One would hope that someday these superficial issues--long a major factor in American elections--will fade in importance, and that political and ideological concerns will become paramount to every voter.