Page 16


often so ponderous that one wonders if the “unelectable” label so easily pinned on Jackson couldn’t be worn as well by Simon. Michael Dukakis seems to us to have a better chance for the White House and, given the choice in November between him and Bush or Dole, we’d happily march right on down to the polls. But Dukakis certainly represents no movement; he is a potential Democratic option. He is, for the moment, the candidate for technocratic solutions, the sensible and cool-headed manager. The problem with technocrats is that they often get snookered by corporate decisionmakers. As we in Austin have witnessed with our city’s recent seduction of Sematech, the high-tech research consortium, the game is played more on the entrepreneur’s terms than on the government’s. The industries that supposedly hold the key to future economic development have become expert in holding out the promise of jobs in exchange for inducements such as favorable tax structures and guarantees that economic benefits will remain in the control of the private sector. How much has Dukakis’s much-touted “economic miracle” in Massachusetts followed this course? \(How much has it relied upon Reagan’s excessive military Dukakis candidacy than has been looked at so far. Richard Gephardt is a career politician who saw the opportunity in Iowa to step into the populist vortex. We give him credit for forming a good strategy but we are hardpressed to find anything more to him than that. Gephardt is the manufactured candidate, a political consultant’s creation. He has no record of consistency in his Congressional career; worse than that we fear he has no real convictions. The conservative columnist Robert Novak recently recounted, in a televised commentary, his having run into a political operative who had worked for Walter Mondale in 1984. The operative said of the press’s reaction to Gephardt, “You know, they hate this guy.” Novak agreed and speculated that journalists prefer traditional liberals and are suspicious of Gephardt for arousing threatening populist passions. We suggest that if it is true the campaign press has a distaste for Gephardt it is because they see him as a phony who casts himself a populist out of sheer opportunism. If Gephardt catches on, you will be able to watch the financiers line up behind him and you will have a clue as to how threatening this supposed populist really is. In this state, the money that was earlier being readied for Gephardt went to Al Gore. Gore has clearly become the hope of the Democratic establishment and is staking his campaign on winning the South. There are several ironies that follow Gore like a shadow. One is that he has become the choice of the “I-want-to-finally-win-one” Democrats even though he is the most wooden and utterly unconvincing of the candidates on the lot. This is the man who will reinspire voters to put a Democrat in the White House? It takes a leap of faith. Another irony is that Gore is being marketed as the conservatives’ choice. He won his Senate seat as a liberal and has a mostly liberal voting record \(though perhaps cultural conservatives admire his wife’s firm stand against the raunchyness of Twisted Yet Gore decided that his only hope of selling himself to the electorate was in selling himself to the money boys. So his voting record is no longer the most relevant thing about him. He’s been bought, and he’ll know where his debts are. So choose your imperfections, voters. Each candidate has a full set of baggage. In all likelihood you will get your chance to vote for another Democrat like Walter Mondale maybe this time with a little! more verve than Wally, maybe not and undoubtedly that candidate would make a better President than a Bush or a Dole. But if you are inspired by Jesse Jackson, give him your vote. If your party’s primary is not the place to vote your conscience, then where is the place? L.D., D.D. How the Primary Works YOU MAY REMEMBER voting for Walter Mondale, Gary Hart, or Jesse Jackson in the Texas primary in 1984, but if you do, it’s all in your head. The names of the candidates for President were not found on the ballot in 1984’s state Democratic primary. Only a small percentage of the state’s voters actually took part in selecting delegates to represent the three Democratic contenders at the national convention: they were the ones who participated in the precinct caucuses the night the polls closed. This year will be different. Not only has Texas joined other southern states in moving the primary to an earlier date, the rules of the game have been altered considerably. We have moved away from the traditional caucus system in favor of the more common method of primary voting, where candidate strength will be decided at the voting booth, not in the often chaotic and contentious late-night caucuses. This year 60 percent of the 197 delegates Texas will send to the Democratic National Convention in Atlanta will be apportioned according to the popular vote on Super Tuesday. But the caucuses live on. The threetiered system of holding precinct conventions, then county conventions 11 days later, and then a state convention in the summer, remains in place. It’s just that the stakes aren’t quite what they used to be. Only a third of the delegates sent to Atlanta will be chosen on the basis of their candidate’s show of strength in the caucuses. Texas is using a dual-track method, mixing primary voting with caucus organizing in a way that party officials say is unique. “We’re the only state in the nation using both systems,” according to Jim Boynton, primary director of the state Democratic Party. Nobody is arguing that the process has been simplified, but here is how it works: On Tuesday, March 8, voters will choose either the Democratic or Republican primary and cast votes in the presidential, statewide, and local races. The local primaries that have traditionally been held in May have been moved up to the Super Tuesday date, with primary run-offs set for April 12. The night of March 8 voters who are still hungry for politics may attend their precinct conventions, which begin at 7:15 p.m. Only those who voted in the primary may participate in the convention. Participants sign in for the candidate of their choice and hold caucuses to elect delegates to the county conventions, which will be held March 19. The process is repeated at the county convention, where delegates are chosen for the state convention, which will be held in Houston on June 17 and 18. At the state convention, delegates will be grouped according to the 31 state Senatorial districts. Each district is allotted a certain number of delegates, determined by a calculation based on the turnout in that district for the Presidential race in 1984 and the Democratic turnout for governor in 1986. These delegates will be awarded to Presidential candidates based on Super Tuesday’s primary vote in that district. For example, the 13th Senatorial District \(which sends Craig Washington of Houston to the state the Super Tuesday vote in the district was 50 percent for Jesse Jackson and 34 percent for Michael Dukakis, Jackson would get three of the delegates and Dukakis would get two. If Paul Simon, Al Gore, and Richard Gephardt all got five percent of the primary vote, none 6 FEBRUARY 26, 1988