THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, January 11, 1996 TAG: 9601110328
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A11 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: By TONY WHARTON, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Long : 104 lines
What happens when 600 Americans, unconnected by party or any other bond except their nation, take three days out of their lives and meet to talk about the issues, with each other and with presidential candidates?
You might think the politicos would jump at such an opportunity. But when this winter's crop of presidential wannabes was invited to exactly that kind of gathering in Austin, Texas, next week - well, the response was not overwhelming.
As of Wednesday, two GOP candidates - U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar and Malcolm ``Steve'' Forbes Jr. - had agreed to attend the National Issues Convention, as it's dubbed, the weekend of Jan. 19 through 21. U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm, a major GOP contender, said he might make it by live satellite hookup.
As for Bob Dole, the Republican front-runner, and President Bill Clinton, the presumed Democratic nominee - they're busy. Dole's campaigning in the first primary states, Iowa and New Hampshire. Clinton expects to be working on the State of the Union address.
If this means anything, mostly it's that politicians, pundits and most of the media don't know what to make of such an event.
Interviews with supporters and critics of the idea indicate that the National Issues Convention is being judged by some of the very rules of modern campaigning it's trying to eliminate:
Appear where there is maximum media exposure, not necessarily where issues will be discussed.
Spend the first part of the campaign in small states that have early primaries or caucuses.
Avoid events you can't control.
James Fishkin, a government professor at the University of Texas, conceived the idea of the convention eight years ago. This year, he has pulled together enough financial support to make it happen.
For three days, 600 Americans, carefully selected to represent a cross-section of the nation, will discuss the economy, foreign policy and the family. The idea was also to have them talk with the presidential candidates, but that looks less likely now.
At first glance, the meaning of the candidates' absence is clear to some of those who make their living studying American politics and culture: Politicians don't get it.
``It shows in general the detachment of politicians,'' said Harry Boyte, co-director of the Center for Democracy and Citizenship in Minneapolis. ``They've taken themselves out of the general citizenry.''
This is a theme often heard from the public. The Harwood Group, a Maryland research firm, conducted interviews recently in the important primary states, and heard anxiety and anger from many people about the tone of the election.
A man in Laconia, N.H., said the presidential campaign would consist mostly of ``TV 30-second spots. It's going to be mighty hard to get the candidates to talk specific issues because that doesn't sell. . . . I'd like to see them talk about issues that affect me: the economy, jobs for the people, education. Those are the issues I'm interested in.''
Ed Fouhy, a veteran journalist and now director of the Pew Center in Washington, said such frustration is right on the mark. The 30-second television spot, he said, ``is the HIV virus of American democracy. It's just killing us.''
But in light of that, he said, the front-runners' response is to be expected.
``The advice they get from their big-gun consultants is, put all your money in television advertising, minimize the grassroots campaigning, and attack the other guy,'' Fouhy said. ``You don't risk any encounters that are unpredictable. To them, this is certainly unpredictable.''
Clinton's refusal in particular seems remarkable because in his State of the Union address last year, he called for a reinvigoration of America's ``civil life.''
``To me, this is the State of the Union address,'' said Jay Rosen, director of the Project on Public Life and the Press at New York University. Several of Clinton's speeches, he said, including one in Austin about race relations, were ``all about how we need to learn to talk with each other. Well, we can't if our leaders decline the best invitation to talk that the civic culture can create.''
And yet, is it asking too much of the candidates to require them to break away from a system that to them seems to be working?
``It's unrealistic to expect them to act differently now, while the status quo is still in place,'' said Chris Gates, president of the National Civic League in Colorado. ``After all, if they didn't feel that way, we wouldn't need to make changes in the process.
``In the early part of a presidential campaign, the candidates are the most averse to risk that they will ever be. This is the big leagues and they're playing for very high stakes.''
Patrick Stroh, an assistant professor of political science at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, said the irony is that the candidates are treating the National Issues Convention as part of the process it's trying to change.
``They're treating it like a media event,'' Stroh said. ``It's part of the regular game. The people who created the convention are trying to get away from the game, but they're actually just part of it.''
In the end, most supporters of the event are more concerned by the absence of the television networks and large newspapers that follow the leading candidates than they are by the absence of the candidates themselves.
``Seeing voters discussing the issues on television, as opposed to pundits and candidates, is quite a revolutionary idea,'' Fouhy said. ``And it really depends on press coverage to get the word out as widely as possible.
``Unfortunately, a lot of newspapers are not going to cover it because Dole is not going to be there.''
PBS will broadcast the entire event. by CNB