A Clash of Visions

By LAURENCE I. BARRETT and STANLEY W. CLOUD CHICAGO

Amid the furious negative ads Bill Clinton and Paul Tsongas have been firing at each other, it is easy to forget that a presidential campaign is supposed to be a contest over ideas. In TV spots, Tsongas has accused his rival of pandering and dishonesty, while Clinton has painted Tsongas as a hard-hearted crypto-Republican. Lost in the din is the fact that these two leading contenders for the Democratic nomination are charting a new direction for their party, moving it away from interest-group economics toward a new vision of American competitiveness.

The seriousness of that quest was underscored last week as Tsongas and Clinton met in an unprecedented one-on-one debate about economic issues arranged and moderated by TIME. Facing each other across a wooden table in a small conference room at Chicago's Midway Airport, the two rivals engaged in a freewheeling, hourlong dialogue on whose ideas can best restore the country's economic strength.

For both candidates, the debate came at a crucial moment. Clinton had just swept seven Southern- and Border-state contests on Super Tuesday, bringing his estimated delegate count to 763 of the 2,145 needed for the nomination. Tsongas had carried only his home state of Massachusetts, plus tiny Rhode Island and Delaware, and was trailing Clinton by about 400 delegates. If Clinton can follow up this week with strong victories in the Illinois and Michigan primaries over Tsongas and ex-California Governor Jerry Brown, his lead could be insurmountable. The biggest threat to Clinton's momentum comes from a surprising source. In Michigan, union members who regard Clinton and Tsongas as hostile to organized labor have been flocking to Brown's anti- Establishment banner. Brown could siphon off enough votes from Clinton to slow him down, permitting Tsongas to fight on next month in New York and Pennsylvania.

Brown has made no pretense of matching the highly detailed economic plans that Clinton and Tsongas debated last week. The two candidates were in accord that national policy must shift drastically away from consumption toward investment in industrial innovation. They concurred that the Federal Government must play a large role in fostering that change, providing incentives for research and for ventures that can transform technological breakthroughs into profitable products. While diverging on details, both supported a capital-gains-tax reduction to promote job creation.

Sharp differences emerged. Tsongas depicted himself as the champion of deferred gratification and Clinton as a politician merely trying to win votes by promising tax relief for ordinary Americans. Tsongas argued that the middle-class tax cut and the tax credit for children younger than 18 -- both moves favored by Clinton -- would divert $55 billion a year from investment. In Tsongas' mashed metaphor, Clinton would waste precious "bullets" that could be used to jump-start the economy's manufacturing "engine." Only "when the engine runs," Tsongas said, can the country afford "other kinds of things," such as tax relief.

Clinton forcefully disagreed, declaring that his meld of tax cuts and his "laundry list" of targeted investment incentives would promote manufacturing while still "helping families raise their children and investing in education and training." He also suggested that Tsongas was proposing merely an updated version of Reaganomics. At times sounding defensive, Clinton noted similarities between his plan and Tsongas' and argued that the middle-class tax cut was only a minor part of his economic program. By constantly attacking the tax cut, Clinton said, Tsongas was appealing to upscale elitists -- a group, he pointedly noted, that includes the editorial writers who have endorsed his rival. Constant carping against the middle-class tax reduction makes Tsongas seem indifferent to the plight of the middle class. Yet many voters are likely to see the truth in Tsongas' assertion that "if you wish to live well, you must produce well."

Despite the economic erudition displayed by both candidates during the debate, the nasty sound-bite campaign was waiting to resume in the real political world outside. Both men were poised to unveil new negative ads. Near the end of their discussion, Tsongas challenged Clinton to call a truce. "Bill," he said, "now that we are face to face, why don't we agree that all the TV we do from here on in ((will be about)) what we stand for?" Clinton declined, accusing Tsongas of posing in his ads as the "only truth teller" among the candidates.

Replied Tsongas: "I will take off any ad you don't like. What could be more fair than that?" Clinton would consent only to correct factual errors that were made in his ads. "I want to continue sharpening the differences ((between us)) for the American people," Clinton said.

The time may not be too distant when both men will choose to blur those differences. Some Democratic insiders are already starting to speculate about a Clinton-Tsongas ticket (or, less likely, a Tsongas-Clinton ticket). The prospect was touched upon briefly, if noncommittally, by the candidates themselves near the end of the TIME session. It is still too early for ticket talk. Even so, the pair debating seriously last week -- as opposed to the caricatures in campaign commercials -- could make a team that would pose a stiff challenge to the Bush-Quayle slate.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: From a telephone poll of 487 registered and leaning Democrats* and 1,075 registered voters** taken for TIME/CNN on March 11-12 by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman. Sampling errors are 4.4% and 3.0%, respectively.

CAPTION: If you were asked to vote for a Democratic presidential nominee today, for whom would you vote?*

Who has a better plan for reviving the economy?*

If the election for President were held today, for whom would you vote?**