The Teflon Twins of 1988

By WALTER SHAPIRO

Imagine the uproar if a television tape were discovered in which, say, Bob Dole argued that only devout Christians and Jews were entitled to serve in government.

Dole, of course, has never said anything like that. But his G.O.P. rival Pat Robertson made precisely that inflammatory statement in a 1985 broadcast of his 700 Club TV show. Robertson compounded the offense last fall by piously insisting that he had never harbored such sentiments, defiantly at odds with the constitutional tradition of separating church and state.

A month before the Iowa caucuses, has there been any outcry over Robertson's TV tape? Not a bit. None of the Republican presidential candidates have dared to challenge Robertson on the church-state issue, even though the former televangelist may run third in Iowa. This seeming immunity from reproach is reminiscent of the see-no-evil response to Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown" slurs about New York City in 1984. The Democrats running last time out made only muted responses to those anti-Semitic comments, nor did they stress Jackson's ties with black Hatemonger Louis Farrakhan. Last fall Jackson received a similar free ride about a far more minor peccadillo: his brief and ill-advised commercial endorsement of a chain of business schools. Had another candidate made a comparable financial arrangement, his judgment would surely have been attacked.

In this season of the character issue, nothing appears to stick to Robertson and Jackson. They could be called the Teflon Twins of post-Reagan politics, unabashed and unapologetic about intemperate statements, personality flaws and boastful exaggerations on their resumes. Robertson and Jackson remain carefree riders on the political roller coaster, rarely having to worry about the bumps and twists that have buffeted Gary Hart, Joseph Biden and Michael Dukakis. As other candidates pepper their rivals with grapeshot, these two preacher- politicians continue to have immunity from all but the most tepid criticism.

This timidity extends to discussions of issues. In a G.O.P. debate, no one demurred when Robertson claimed that legal abortion jeopardizes the future of the Social Security system by depriving the American economy of needed workers. Nor have his rivals responded to other flights of Robertson rhetoric, like his loose talk of rolling back Communism in the Soviet Union. On the Democratic side, there has been no direct criticism of Jackson's cavalier proposal for Draconian cuts in defense spending. Similarly, no Democrat has asked Jackson to explain how he could tap the nation's pension funds for a massive public works program without jeopardizing the income of retirees or providing expensive federal guarantees.

Strategists for other candidates purport to find nothing strange in these political grants of indulgence. Brian Lunde, Paul Simon's campaign manager, says about Jackson, "You don't beat on someone who doesn't threaten you." But Iowa polling data suggest that Jackson is taking some white populist votes that might otherwise have gone to Simon. In similar fashion, a top strategist for George Bush argues, "There is no percentage in directly taking on Robertson unless he takes you on." But Robertson poses a clear threat to Bush: his Fundamentalist faithful have embarrassed the Vice President in the initial political skirmishing in Michigan.

The press has attempted to hold Jackson and Robertson to the same character standards as their more conventional rivals, albeit to little effect. Several profiles have knocked holes in Jackson's heroic posturing, most notably his hotly disputed boast that he cradled Martin Luther King in his arms after the assassination. Robertson has also been shown to have augmented his resume in a less than truthful fashion: his suspect claims range from assertions that he was a "combat" officer in Korea to exaggerated educational and business credentials.

In addition, the funding of Robertson's early political efforts is being investigated by the IRS. Michael McManus, a syndicated columnist specializing in religious issues, has documented $8.4 million that went from Robertson's tax-exempt Christian Broadcasting Network to now defunct "educational" groups like the Freedom Council, which allegedly paid for much of the TV preacher's initial political organizing. The Robertson campaign has not disputed McManus' figures, which were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. But Communications Director Constance Snapp says, "All monies given to the Freedom Council by CBN were perfectly legitimate from both a legal and ethical standpoint."

True, both Jackson and Robertson boast dedicated supporters unlikely to shift their allegiance because of negative press coverage. In fact, such articles may have enhanced the image of candidate as martyr: some blacks may see Jackson as besieged by the "white" media; Evangelicals could view Robertson as crucified by "secular humanist" reporters.

The silence of rival candidates is simply safe politics. As Democratic Analyst Robert Beckel says, "Nobody is going to get their constituencies now anyway. Why attack if you can't get votes out of it?" Both Jackson and Robertson are likely to arrive at their respective conventions with committed blocs of delegates, ready to bargain over the identity of the nominee or the content of the party platform. Come November, the Democrats will need high black turnout and Republicans will want to win over Robertson's Fundamentalist followers, many of whom have tenuous ties to the G.O.P.. As a Bush adviser says about Robertson, "We're going to need his folks next fall. Why alienate them if you don't have to?"

That may make short-term political sense, but the cloak of immunity that currently protects Jackson and Robertson does little to elevate the political debate.

With reporting by Laurence I. Barrett/Washington