Why?

George Bush labored mightily on Wednesday to explain his choice of a vice presidential running mate, but the question persisted: Why Dan Quayle?

The only logical conclusion was that Bush felt obliged to appease the hard-core right wing of the Republican Party that insisted, among other things, on someone who was militantly opposed to abortion. But even that was not very logical. It is possible that the most conservative Republicans still suspect that Bush really is a closet moderate, but they were not likely to bolt the party and vote for Democrat Michael S. Dukakis in any event. Bush already has proved himself to be true-blue conservative enough to meet any reasonable political litmus test.

Why Dan Quayle?

Well, Bush said, because he’s qualified. Because they agree on the challenges facing the nation. And because he is a good campaigner who will help the ticket everywhere--not just in the Middle West.

In fact, Quayle’s qualifications are thin compared with others whom Bush had under consideration. There is considerable question whether Quayle will help Bush all that much even in the Midwest outside his home state of Indiana, which Republicans are certain to carry anyway. When it comes to politics, Indiana is not much like Ohio or Michigan or even Iowa. The Almanac of American Politics describes Indiana as a political museum piece with cultural and ethnic patterns pretty much as they were in the 1920s.

Clearly Bush likes Quayle and is comfortable with him, but that alone does not justify the selection of a man who might be, as they say, a heart-beat away from the American presidency.

Why Dan Quayle?

He’s young and handsome, they say. Not just handsome, but Robert Redford-handsome. He will appeal to women voters. He won reelection in a landslide over a woman in 1986. The not-so-subtle message was that Quayle would help close the gender gap with his good looks. This is not only wrong, but it is insulting and patronizing to women. The 1986 election was not much of a test. Quayle’s opponent was underfinanced and had little statewide voter recognition. And will the 41-year-old help attract the vote of fellow baby-boomers? Maybe, but young people are less inclined to vote than their elders, and when they do vote they do not necessarily vote for other baby-boomers. They may be conservative economically, but they tend to be more liberal on social issues than is Quayle.

Why Dan Quayle?

Why a rising star when so much proven talent was available? Why someone who is so much a carbon copy of a younger George Bush, including a family background of wealth, power and prestige? Why someone who has acknowledged that his life had been so easy that he never had to work very hard to get what he wanted? Why not some balance on the ticket? Bush’s explanation: “He’s different from me. I’m 64 and he’s 41.”

This was George Bush’s first major decision on assuming the leadership of the Republican Party from Ronald Reagan. And, it would seem, his first major problem. Why Dan Quayle?