Here's the beef; what the press hasn't asked; what the candidates haven't answered.

• Author: Cooper, Matthew
• Position: Includes related article on Gary Hart

Here's the BEEF

"I'm someone who happens to believe that more trade is better than less trade," confides Candidate Dukakis out on the hustings.

"Building good jobs is going to be our top job," volunteers rival Candidate Gephardt.

"I have made my preference clear," Candidate Gore wants us to know. "My first choice for reducing the deficit is economic growth."

Not very helpful? Well, neither is Candidate Simon. "This country needs leadership unafraid to make the tough choices to balance our budget," he says. "The best path to deficit reduction is job creation."

Still wandering in the wilderness, looking for an exit from America's current world of trade imbalances, record deficits, market crashes, and moribund industry? Disgruntled with unfair taxes, inept schools, and greedy interest groups? Ready to get down to business? "I'm a tree-shaker," offers Candidate Jackson, "not a jam maker."

What we need is a candidate shaker. Left to themselves, the Democrats have shown little inclination to take on the issues that count and talk about them in ways that matter. All support "economic growth," but few are specific on how to get it. All support "competitiveness," but few are talking about how to make short-sighted managers and stubborn unions do anything about it.

This year, as in every election year, the press has bemoaned the lack of issues. "There are few cutting issues or themes or ideologies for the candidates," wrote Time in a typical lament, urging the candidates to "offer the voters themes and ideas rather than merely their personalities . . . the real trick is having something to say."

But it takes two to have a superficial relationship. The press must bear much of the responsibility for the lack of useful information coming our way. Too many reporters see the campaign as a phenomenon in itself, set apart from the issues of governance it will determine. We learn more than most of us would ever care to know about staff rivalry and power struggles, weekly polls and fundraising strategies, Iowa county politics and New Hampshire weather. When The Wall Street Journal devoted a 32-page special section to Politics '88, it reserved one page for issues coverage, which it sandwiched between stories about campaign advance work and speculation about who might emerge as key convention powerbrokers. Yet, the caucusing of Michigan Republicans--so arcane that neither the candidates, the columnists, nor the caucusers could explain what was at stake--spilled out in 50-inch take-outs in the nation's top papers. Gary Hart's return to the campaign is likely to exacerbate the press's taste for the superficial.

Calvin Trillin captured the shallowness of so much of the coverage in a recent interview with The Christian Science Monitor. "Probably 80 to 90 percent [of the coverage] is devoted to who is likely to win the election--something everybody's going to know the night of the election," he mused. "What if they were right? I mean it doesn't make any difference."

When reporters do focus on the issues, too often they let the candidate set the agenda. Reporters that feel ever-capable of writing "analysis" pieces to depict mood, momentum, and other vague elements of campaign "advantage," are willing to serve as mere scribes at issue sessions. "Dukakis: Defense Spending about Right," read the headline of a recent piece by The Washington Post's David Broder, one of the country's best political reporters. The piece went on to offer Dukakis's defense laundry list: halt the MX and Midgetman missiles, cut back the Strategic Defense Initiative, and keep the Stealth bomber. That's fine, as far as it goes. But like so many politicians, Dukakis--and the story-- ignored many of the forces that really jack up the Pentagon's budget, like the over $100 billion spent on military pay and retirement benefits, and the bedrock assumptions behind keeping 2.1 million active duty troops in uniform.

Ironically, this year's campaign coverage is already considered more scrutinizing than ever. Reporters are willing to hide in the bushes to plumb further the nuances of the "character" of the man whose finger may be on the button. No details of dress seem too small or relationships too private to escape our attention.

Sure, we want to know about a candidate's temperament, humor, judgment, and poise under stress. We want to know about his life's experiences. Jesse Jackson's childhood does shed light upon his prospective presidency, as does Albert Gore's service in Vietnam, or Paul Simon's fight against corruption in the state legislature. Not even the most zealous issue-monger would suggest that a candidate's suitability for the presidency can be gleaned from a stack of policy papers alone.

But the distinction usually drawn between issues and character is a false one. Where a candidate stands on the issues is one of the best character tests of all. Is he courageous enough to say what the facts demand? Smart enough to understand the implications? Does wisdom guide his words, or expediency? While too many reporters search bedrooms and war records for clues to that evanscent quality called character, the issues get pushed aside.

What follows are the profiles the other magazines and newspapers aren't giving you. Look hard. You won't find a word about Paul Simon's bow tie or Al Gore's wife. What you will find are six issues that test the Democratic candidates' suitability to govern: Tax the wealthy; Cut the sticker prices; Let the talented teach; Get serious about the deficit; Serve the community; and Unentitle the unneedy (and really help the poor). They cover a lot of American terrain-- from ghetto schools to military bases, from hospitals to factory floors. But they also bring to light the single most troubling and intractable dilemma we face: the politics of selfishness. More than that, they point the way out.

There are other positions that any Democratic nominee should embrace. These include (to name just a few) specific commitments to revitalize the Environmental Protection Agency, raise the minimum wage, deny military aid to the Nicaraguan contras, and reduce the Pentagon's interservice rivalries, as well as seek progress on perennial concerns like nuclear arms control. A good president would tackle these issues; a great one needs to go further.

That's why there is no grading on a curve here. Any one of the six democrats would give us policies better than those of Ronald Reagan. Judged against the likes of Jack Kemp, George Bush, Pat Robertson, and the rest of the GOP field, most of the Democrats would earn As and Bs.

But this test is confined to Democrats, and it expects more than mere adequacy. That is why most of the candidates do poorly. What's missing is leadership that promises much but also asks Americans to do their part.

Glance through the piece you'll see a consistent exception to the waffling and the fudging: Bruce Babbitt. On education, entitlements, the economy, and taxes, Babbitt has been on the mark, leveling with us about the hard choices immediately ahead. But he's no doom-and-gloom Democrat. If enacted, Babbitt's plans for broader labor-management cooperation, expanded government assistance for the needy, and stronger classrooms could give the country what it needs: programs that are affordable, compassionate-- and that work.

The political experts and the conventional press will point out the obvious and tell us that Babbitt isn't selling. But if you believe that it will take more than a Mondale with charisma for the Democrats to improve their sorry record--16 of the last 20 years out of the White House--read on. Let others cover the horse race. Here's the beef.

Tax the wealthy

Just as lobbyists for the Tobacco Institute still insist that cigarettes don't cause cancer, Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, and the editors of The Wall Street Journal still insist that tax cuts for the wealthy will heal the economy, produce more revenue, and reduce deficits. Most of us long ago recognized the truth. Smoking kills--and supply-side economics is a crock.

Since 1979, the national debt has tripled to more than $2 trillion, while business investment and savings have dropped. Growth has averaged just 2.1 percent, anemic by historical standards, and has been fueled largely by VISA cards and deficits--classic "demand-side" conomics.

In chasing the mirage of easy prosperity through lower taxes, the nation lost sight of the single most important principle of taxation: the costs of government should be apportioned according to the ability to pay. Between 1977 and 1984, the top 10 percent of the nation's taxpayers increased their share of the nation's income by about 12 percent. But their share of the nation's tax burden dropped by about 11 percent. A major reason for this is that the marginal rates in the top bracket were cut from 70 percent in 1980 to 50 percent under Reagan's 1981 tax cut act, and then to 28 percent under the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

The Democrats must share the blame. Yes, the 1986 act was a remarkably welcome development; tax rates were lowered for almost everyone, primarily by closing loopholes for the rich and raising the corporate income tax. But the act still treated the affluent too tenderly. Its main architect, Senator Bill Bradley, fought efforts to add a third, higher tax bracket for the well-to-do. By retaining the top bracket of 38.5 percent that's currently in the tax code and due to expire, a Democratic president could increase progressivity and raise about $22 billion. While it's not the answer to our deficit woes, a third bracket would reaffirm the important principle of demanding a fair share of the rich. That bracket would affect fewer than 2 percent of all taxpayers; a family of four would have to earn $115, 000 to qualify. Even Senator Jay Rocketfeller looks kindly on this idea, however unpopular it might make him at the next family reunion.

There are other ways to boost the progressivity of the code. Half the Social...