Whom are the conservatives backing?

WHOM ARE THE CONSERVATIVES BACKING?

THE QUESTION is everywhere being asked,Whom are the conservatives backing for President in 1988? It is asked only because no one knows the answer. It isn't as it was in 1964, when the answer was as simple as AuH.sub.2.O, as the bumperstickers for Goldwater came affectionately to designate that 18-karat-gold candidate. In 1968, conservatives were split. The majority had plighted their troth to Nixon, not expecting a serious challenge from Reagan, who, indeed, didn't formally enter the race until after he had arrived in Miami. In 1976 there was never any question: Reagan was the choice, even over an incumbent Republican President. And again in 1980, the conservatives were with Reagan.

The great political surprise of the conservativeseason has been the failure of Congressman Jack Kemp to establish his title to the succession. He says the right things, he is a good speaker, a bright and likable man, perfect age, exotic background, fine family: but for some reason he has not yet been passed the torch. This doesn't mean that it will not happen in the days ahead. But the last national poll published showed him with 5 per cent backing among Republican voters, less than 1 per cent of whom declared themselves immovable on the subject. By contrast, Vice President Bush got 33 per cent backing, with 8 per cent resolute. And Senator Bob Dole got 19 per cent, with 3 per cent resolute. The big surprise was General Al haig, who came in ahead of Kemp--with 7 per cent preference, 2 per cent resolute.

Now, not every Repubican voter is aconservative, but, outside the South, all conservatives are Republicans. If, to use round figures, we think of half the Republicans as self-declared conservatives, then the figures above are all the more surprising in respect of Kemp. George Bush, as the presumptive heir, has divided support among conservatives. There are those who think of him as the able coadjutor of Ronald Reagan, whose policies Mr. Bush is assumed to endorse. But there are others who think of him as the man who challenged Ronald Reagan in 1980 and, in his heart, still thinks of Reaganomics as voodoo. Meanwhile he struggles with that awful burden of the Vice Presidency, which is the Siamese-twin problem. Hubert Humphrey was one of the most spontaneous political figures in recent history, but by the time he had served Lyndon Johnson as Vice President for three years he was reduced in the public mind to sheer amorphousness: Every time you sought out Hubert Humphrey, the shadow of LBJ got in the way. Bush has this problem, and it is not his fault that heis indistinct in the ideological spectrum. Moreover, it will be a while before he establishes positions clearly his own, irrespective of whether they exactly, or only tangentially, reflect those of Ronald Reagan.

BOB DOLE raises confused and confusingquestions among conservatives. They think of him as temperamentally a conservative, but of a pre-supply-side, high-tax school. They point to the big leadership he gave to the 1982 tax bill, paying not much heed to Ronald Reagan's own sponsorship of that bill. They acknowledge that he has been a faithful representative of Reagan while serving as Republican leader in the Senate. They just don't seem quite to know what to think about Bob Dole.

The Reverend Pat Robertson (score: 3per cent, with 1 per cent resolute) has said everything conservatives wish to hear, but there is the indisposition to believe thatany minister is, ultimately, a serious candidate. Senator Paul Laxalt is affectionately regarded as a True Believer, but his score on the last poll (he has not yet announced, bear in mind) is 3 per cent, with 2 per cent resolute. And Governor du Pont, who in almost every respect says what conservatives wish to hear, is burdened primarily by his low count: 1 per cent, with 0 per cent resolute.

I am myself much indebted to ProfessorJohn Kenneth Galbraith for a formulation he gave when asked several years ago whom he was backing for the Presidency on the Democratic ticket. His answer: "The leftwardmost viable candidate." The operative word there is, of course, "viable." I doff my hat to Professor Galbraith and buy whole his formula, with only the single substitution of rightwardmost for leftwardmost.

Where will American conservatives finallyconsolidate? Inevitably, in the absence of a leader with the personal backing of a Goldwater or a Reagan, behind the candidate who proves viable. How do you define "viable"? Waal, if means you have to entice the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, and Ten Southern States.