Post-Election Mutterings

Never before has a Presidential election result been both as predictable and inexplicable to me as in 1984.

Ronald Reagan's soothing smile, serene optimism and unabashed appeal to nationalism carried the day — not necessarily on the issues but certainly in popularity.

It is no secret that I am not one of Mr. Reagan's admirers, but I must admit to a touch of awe for the manner in which he is able to escape personal responsibility in the eyes of the electorate.

He espouses strong family ties and traditional values. The actuality is that he is one of the few Presidents who have been divorced, and he has hardly ever seen his only 2 grandchildren.

He speaks out fervently for private charity instead of government assistance, but his own tax returns show that he has contributed very little of his considerable income for charitable purposes.

He is a vigorous advocate of prayer in the schoolhouse. The reality is that he hardly ever attends church services.

One of his top priorities is reducing the size of government; yet, the federal payroll is greater now than when he took office.

If anyone else stood accused of behavior so patently at variance with his stated principles, it would be deemed to be the height of hypocrisy. Mr. Reagan manages to carry it off with no less than a landslide.

Critical issues ... were all successfully by-passed

Throughout the campaign Reagan spoke in generalities, without focusing on specific issues or setting forth his program for a second term. Critical issues like the astronomical deficits which even the most conservative among us cringe at, the slaughter of the hapless Marines in Beirut and the increased number of the disadvantaged living below the poverty level, were all successfully by-passed.

His campaign was an incredible triumph of the vague and ambiguous over the specific, and a testimonial to his ability to rely on generalities and banalities, without adverse consequences.

Yet, as I perused the election results in more detail state by state (and issue by issue in California), it was pretty obvious that the electorate willfully voted as it did. In state after state, incumbent Democrats were re-elected while the vote for Reagan assumed runaway proportions.

Even in California the same voters who cast their ballot for Reagan also opted not to reduce welfare payments and not to reduce taxes, both integral parts of the Reagan platform.

The breakdown of the vote revealed that the Blacks, the Hispanics, the Jews and the poor all voted for Mondale, as expected. Thus, there must have been a substantial Middle America vote which swung the election. This large group of fluctuating voters, consisting of labor and the middle class, must have given its mandate to Reagan.

The fact that the young were for Reagan rather shocked me. If they are not to be liberal now, then when?

The seminal selection of the first woman on a national ticket was at most a wash in the voting. For the feminists who may have voted for Geraldine Ferraro, there surely was a countervailing backlash to neutralize that historic nomination. Nevertheless, it was a monumental political breakthrough.

With each election I have become more and more impressed with the accuracy of the pollsters who seem able to predict the end result. There were mighty few surprises.

I suppose that Ronald Reagan's strong suit was that he made Americans feel good about themselves. He ignored the central problems, was soothing in demeanor, and came through as a decent, good-natured guy despite any of his actions to the contrary. He could calmly state that his tax cutting and government reduction in welfare expenditures did not unduly benefit the rich or harm the poor, and make it believable despite all evidence to the contrary. When I listened to him, I was under the impression that he believed it, himself, and thus was credible to others.

He believed it, himself, thus was credible to others

With a reassuring grin and well-timed quip Reagan managed to deflect such deficiencies as his advanced age, his sleeping through cabinet meetings, and his lack of knowledge on essential government matters. Withal, he came across as having strong qualities of leadership. For sure, his training and many years as an actor stood him in good stead.

Perhaps Walter Mondale was not an exciting candidate. Perhaps his strategy of being candid about tax increases was questionable. Perhaps, instead of sleeping at meetings, he put meetings to sleep. But my gut feeling is that in 1984 nobody could have headed off the old cowboy at the pass. Elections, like life itself, go in cycles and the spin of the wheel was in Reagan's direction.

I leave to my readers the task of reconciling the no-tax-increase promise of Ronald Reagan with his spokesman's talk of "revenue enhancement."

Could it all best be explained by noting that, after all, it's Orwell's 1984?

Prediction: History will not be as kind in its assessment of Ronald Reagan as were the voters in 1984.

For me, the election proved that (a) people prefer to hear good news rather than bad, (b) predictions of future deficit disasters and days of reckoning fall on deaf ears, (c) Reagan's charm was mightier than Mondale's decency, and (d) I am out of tune with the majority in believing in the Good Fairy.