The Ways to Washington Via Iowa

WASHINGTON —  Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) and Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kans.)--the front-runners in Iowa polls on the eve of that state’s critical presidential caucuses--share much in common.

Although they belong to different parties, both have won the respect of colleagues while rising to leadership posts in Congress. As a Capitol insider, each is well-versed in the details of federal spending and taxes and is a skillful craftsman of legislative coalitions. And each is a tireless campaigner who appears rejuvenated by the press of a voter’s handshake.

But their contrasting campaign styles in the days before the Iowa vote offer an interesting view of the different routes to the presidency. Gephardt chartered a planeload of 42 of his House Democratic colleagues to keynote rallies in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids before they fanned across Iowa to campaign for him. Dole, on the other hand, was a first-day witness as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee launched hearings on the nuclear-arms treaty signed in December by President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail S. Gorbachev; unlike Gephardt, who missed 82% of last year’s House votes, Dole has kept a strong attendance record on the Senate floor.

Another notable difference: Gephardt is a hot number among the Democratic candidates at the moment and may soar in national publicity and polls if he wins convincingly in Iowa tomorrow. But Dole’s campaign appears listless and seemingly outmatched by the overwhelming organizational strength of Vice President George Bush.

Their fates may change overnight, of course. But this year’s campaign, so far, is a reminder of the great difference between winning elections and governing. This stark conflict poses real problems for a member of Congress seeking the presidency, because the skills required to succeed legislatively bear little direct relevance to garnering votes in presidential caucuses and primaries.

Legislative success typically demands a precise response to a definite problem and the ability to win support from a relatively small number of fellow lawmakers. In a presidential campaign, the premium is placed on a well-crafted message and legions of grass-roots supporters willing to join a crusade. Take the Gephardt example. After joining the House in 1977, he quickly earned a reputation for his mastery of issues and his painstaking ability to spend as many hours or days as needed to build a majority. Although he has been a leading sponsor of major proposals to shape these debates, such as health-care and tax reform, he has gained more acclaim for steering his party to a consensus position that most Democrats could support. Those skills helped him to win unopposed election in 1984 as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Compare that style with the much different approach that has propelled Gephardt to the front ranks of presidential contenders: He has pushed a major international-trade proposal that his opponents label “protectionist.” His proposal to raise farmers’ income by forcing up consumer prices has generated considerable appeal in rural Iowa, but Gephardt spends less time discussing it in other states, like New Hampshire. While gaining support from vital labor and farm groups, he has used establishment-bashing rhetoric to attack corporate leaders and editorial writers for the Wall Street Journal, two groups that curry little sympathy among Democratic voters. In the words of a recent Newsweek report, Gephardt “dares to pander.”

Meanwhile, Dole has dwelt on his experience as GOP leader and chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, but his campaign pitch has been short on new proposals or a compelling message. His “vision” is the artfully vague pledge of strong leadership to deal with the nation’s tough problems, especially the federal deficit. The prototypical Washington insider, Dole last week personally attacked Bush for not for not understanding how Congress operates and for not respecting campaign protocol.

Voters have heard relatively little from Gephardt or Dole about the details of their past legislative efforts. In part, that may be because such tales are too complex or dull. More to the point, however, nearly any action that either has taken probably offended some important group. In contrast to Dole, whose speeches sometimes sound like a review of the Senate’s agenda, Gephardt makes an effort to strike broad themes that responds to public attitudes.

The Gephardt-Dole dichotomy is not the whole story about congressional experience in a presidential race. On the Republican side, Rep. Jack Kemp of New York is the idea-merchant who makes few references to his legislative dealings. Also seeking the Democratic nomination are Sens. Paul Simon of Illinois and Albert Gore Jr. of Tennessee, both elected to the House with Gephardt in the mid-1970s but moved to the Senate in 1984. Neither was a major legislative player like Gephardt. Simon failed dismally to win the support of his Democratic colleagues in a 1981 bid to chair the House Budget Committee.

Running on a legislative record has its risks, as has been seen in the attacks on Gephardt’s House votes by his opponents. Simon, in the Iowa campaign’s closing days, criticized several Gephardt votes as being inconsistent or for supporting Reagan. Gore joined Simon in criticizing Gephardt’s 1981 vote for the Reagan Administration’s tax cuts, and Gephardt is also vulnerable to criticism for a 1985 vote favoring a one-year freeze in the Social Security cost-of-living increase.

But voters seem to be paying little heed to these apparent inconsistencies. Such posturing is a time-honored tradition for political candidates to nearly any office. Although Gephardt’s alleged conversions have prompted heavy criticism from both the press and his opponents, they are not strikingly more sinister than Simon’s call for balancing the federal budget while adding a batch of domestic spending programs or the claim by Gov. Michael S. Dukakis (D-Mass.) that he would slash the deficit by toughening enforcement of tax collection.

For members of Congress, years of roll-call votes and positions on issues plus the adulation they receive from the Washington crowd pose occupational hazards if they run for President. That helps to explain why many members of Congress, including some top-flight leaders, have failed dismally in recent campaigns. Senators such as Howard H. Baker Jr. (R-Tenn.) and Henry M. Jackson (D-Wash.) painfully discovered that respect in Congress does not automatically translate into success on the campaign circuit.

Bush, who served four years in the House and was defeated twice in contests for the Senate, has taken a different tack by blaming Congress for making a “total mess” of the budget and foreign policy. Although Congress does not fare well in public-opinion polls, Bush may be treading on thin ice with voters who in recent years have displayed a conscious desire to have different parties controlling the White House and Congress. Presumably, it is no coincidence that Bush’s strategy spotlights Dole, who has been a Senate leader during the Reagan era.

Related to the issue of congressional experience is the value of endorsements from colleagues. Recent experiences of ex-Sens. Edmund S. Muskie (D-Maine) and Walter F. Mondale (D-Minn.) suggest that, by themselves, long lists of support add little to a candidate’s appeal or performance in critical states like Iowa or New Hampshire.

But Gephardt has tried a new slant by organizing other House Democrats to speak on his behalf before very small groups, sometimes a single family. And if he fares well in Iowa and New Hampshire, he hopes his support from more than a dozen Texas and Florida congressmen will prove useful in giving him credibility with voters and an entry to local fund-raisers in those critical Super Tuesday states.

A survey in late 1987 by Mervin D. Field’s California Poll showed that voters tended to prefer a senator more than a governor for President and that, all other characteristics being equal, a representative would fall far behind a senator (57%-14%). That conclusion suggests that Gephardt faces major obstacles as he seeks to join James Garfield as the only President to move directly from “the people’s House” to the White House. Stranger things have happened in this campaign.