mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (01/04/84)
So Jesse Jackson has accomplished in twenty-four hours what Reagan and all his "special envoys" couldn't do in nearly a month: he has convinced the Syrians to make a significant gesture towards the U.S. in Lebanon. Of course, Assad's decision is partly good politics: it will embarass Reagan internationally and domestically. It also places the ball solidly in the U.S. court, requiring a substantial countermove, perhaps even an end to the flights the Syrians sought to stop by holding Goodman. But it is also a tribute to the value of direct diplomacy. Think of the Camp David accords. Whatever your opinion of the agreements themselves, you must admit that they never would have been possible without a high-level one-on-one (or, more accurately, two-on-one) conference. It is significant that Reagan has found no issue deserving of his personal interest. Not the nuclear weapons discussions, which he knew would breakdown weeks in advance of the actual Soviet walkout. Not the Nicaraguan War; he won't even allow Nicaraguan officials into the U.S. to make their case. And, of course, not the Mideast. This will surely give a significant boost to Jackson's Presidential campaign, and rightly so. He has accomplished something, which is more than Mondale and Glenn can say. More importantly, Jackson is raising the right issues. He says blacks have historically been excluded from the Democratic Party, and he's right; until the 1968 Convention, not a single black had been seated as a Democratic Party delegate. He says the 1984 Convention rules have been written so as to limit party democracy, and he's right. Charles Manatt, chair of the Democratic Party, engineered a deal between the large pressure groups within the party to give them much more control over the convention than they've exercised for the last 15 years. Why? Because these Democrats think democracy (with a small 'd') is bad for the party. They think the labor bureaucrats and elected state officials should ordain a candidate, and Walter Mondale is their choice for ordination in San Francisco. They may win the battle but loose the war: Mondale would be a terrible candidate against Ronald Reagan. But the book is far from written: no early front-runner has won the nomination since 1956. In 1975, Jimmy Carter was supported by a whopping 4 percent of all Democrats. The same is true of McGovern, who was a hopeless dark horse in 1972 -- until the primaries started up and Muskie, the Walter Mondale of that election, choked badly. Who, then, is the dark horse of '84? Could it be Jackson? It seems doubtful, not because of his color, but because of him. In Chicago, where I live, Jackson is well-known, and widely disliked by whites and blacks. He is seen as a one-man movement, someone who cares mainly for his own advancement. How does that make him different from other politicians? A fair question, to which the answer is, it doesn't, which is why I doubt he'll be able to pull ahead of the pack. I think he'll go to the convention with a solid bloc of delegates, and if that turns out to be so, his influence will be a good one. But what is needed is a candidate who can inspire people, a candidate who seems different to people who voted for Ronald Reagan because he seemed different. Many mention Alan Cranston as that candidate. Cranston seized on the nuclear weapons issue before it became mainstream. And he has gone further than the other Democratic candidates in proposing solutions. Like Jackson, who believed that personal intervention was required in Syria, Cranston believes that the nuclear arms race is too important an issue to be left to the technocrats of the arms control establishment. He has pledged to assume personal responsibility for one-on-one negotiations with the Soviets immediately following his inauguration as President, should that come about. Anyone who is serious about ending the arms race would match that promise. Which shows you how many candidates are serious about ending the arms race. Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk