Dems hobbled by own reforms

New Hampshire matters -- especially this year, especially for Democrats. For the first time since 1976, Democrats smell victory.

Polls show the Republicans are vulnerable. They seem to have lost their way. The Republican vision of lower taxes, smaller government and strong defense as been betrayed by history, Democratic control of Congress, a recession and uncertain leadership. With the possibility of victory in November, Democrats new publicly worry that the candidates they have fielded may not be up to the challenge.

If we look back over the course of American history, the pool from which we draw presidential candidates has not changed much. However, the process by which we select from the pool has changed a lot.

The pool, for all practical purposes, has fewer than 200 people in it. This includes sitting and former vice presidents. It includes most U.S. senators, because most senators begin thinking about being president the day after their own election. If you subtract those who are too old or whose personal lives would not pass scrutiny, that would give us about 75 people. First-term U.S. Sen Bob Kerrey is a prime example.

At least 75 of the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives seem to think of themselves as presidential timber. Rep. David McCurdy, D-Okla., who considered running earlier this year, or Rep. Pat Schroeder, D-Colo., and Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., from 1988 are recent examples.

At least half of the sitting governors have visions of the presidential sweepstakes, for another 25: Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton are the most recent examples.

There are also back channels to the pool. Back-channel nominees of major political parties in this century include business leaders (Wendell Eilkie), military heroes (Dwight Eisenhower), and former cabinet officers (Herbert Hoover).

What's different? Primaries and party caucuses have replaced political leaders in selecting presidential candidates. That's why New Hampshire matters.

Though it now appears that Paul Tsongas will win in New Hampshire, the question is by how much. If he simply squeaks past Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, then Clinton will remain a strong contender.

However, what if Tsongas wins big-- say, two-to-one over Clinton? Will party activists accept the leadership of a man who calls himself "a pro-business Democrat," supports nuclear power, opposes middle-class tax cuts and resists Japan-bashing?

On the other hand, what if no one emerges as a clear winner in New Hampshire, will others from the pool be "encouraged" to enter the race - say, New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen or Gephardt?

And who will "encourage" them? In 1968, a certifiable heavyweight and sitting vice president named Hubert Humphrey was waiting in the wings when President Lyndon Johnson dropped out after his "defeat" in New Hampshire. Today, there is no Democratic establishment to anoint a leader in the event of a vacuum, and Congress is so discredited that any attempt by its leadership to bypass the results of New Hampshire would probably backfire. Democrats are stuck with the process they created with the McGovern reforms following the 1968 selection.

If Tsongas wins big, Democrat leaders will make a mistake if they try to sidetrack him. If tonight's results are muddy, Democratic heavyweights, having reformed away their capability to exercise leadership, would be well-advised to let the process they created play itself out.