LAST TUESDAY'S New Hampshire primary had the unfortunate result of propelling former Gov. Jimmy Carter of Georgia into the lead for the Democratic presidential nomination. It is important that his candidacy be dealt a shattering blow in this Tuesday's Massachusetts primary.

Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign exploits one of the worst features of American politics--the tendency to treat political issues as if they were not political issues at all, but simply questions of personality and efficient administration. "I will never tell a lie," Carter avows with metronome-like regularity. "I will never make a misleading statement. I won't avoid a controversial issue. I promise never to embarrass you. If I ever do any of these things, then you shouldn't support me. I don't deserve your support."

A poll conducted by The New York Times and Daniel Yankelovich after last week's New Hampshire primary demonstrates how successful Carter has been in camouflaging his politics. Twenty-two per cent of those asked perceived him as liberal; twenty-two per cent saw him as conservative; and thirty-two per cent described him as moderate.

In presenting the office of the presidency as devoid of ideological content, Carter is of course perpetrating the biggest lie of all. The powers traditionally associated with the presidency--the power to push or to veto legislation, the administration of defense and social welfare appropriations, the setting of domestic and foreign policy priorities--all have direct political consequences. It requires an astonishing naivete to believe differently.

Jimmy Carter is not naive. He is merely attempting to capitalize on the mood of the electorate that regards politics as entirely corrupt and wishes to believe that government can be run entirely on the basis of honesty and efficiency. In fact, by penetrating the haze Carter has attempted to create around his campaign and record as governor of Georgia, one finds his stands are perfectly congruent with the attitudes of Southern conservatism.

Carter has always opposed busing, abortion reform, and until this year, a federal takeover of welfare. He has favored right-to-work laws, the death penalty and preventive detention, and opposed federal aid to New York City. His right-wing approach to international affairs is vividly reflected in his selection of Dean Rusk as his foreign policy advisor. The central theme of Carter's campaign has been the need to trim federal bureaucracy, specifically welfare bureaucracy; such language masks a more fundamental desire to realign governmental priorities and to eliminate the social welfare programs of the 60's. The brunt of this new austerity will of course be borne by poor and working people. "I think you will find," Carter's press secretary wrote in 1972, "that Senator Jackson, Governor Wallace and [Carter] are in close agreement on most issues."

WE AGREE. Jackson and Wallace state outright what Carter merely implies--that America's ills stem from the federal government's attempt to aid the poor and minorities. Wallace speaks to genuine issues such as unemployment and inflation, but in a wholly destructive and superficial manner, diverting the electorate's attention from the roots of these problems in America's social structure. Instead, Wallace chooses to focus his appeal solely on divisive issues such as busing which are only manifestations of much more profound conflicts in American life. Jackson has been tripping over himself in his attempt to present himself as more reactionary than Wallace. Between the two of them they have articulated an insidious politics of hatred and have pandered shamelessly to racism and status-anxiety.

At this point, it appears Rep.Morris Udall (D-Az.) has emerged as the front-runner among liberal candidates, but Udall has little to offer in the way of alternative approaches to social and economic problems beyond an outworn reworking of Kennedy liberalism, emphasizing the environment. In fact, until recently, his campaign rhetoric fed into the right wing attack on social programs by urging the American people to lower their expectations in the face of scarce resources. Nor do other liberal candidates like Sen. Birch Bayh (D-Ind.) and R. Sargent Shriver have more substantive solutions for the social and economic crisis which faces America today. Though they, like Udall, support full employment, they have no idea about the ways in which this could be put into effect and have failed to address themselves to the structural sources of the country's ills: the economic and political power of American corporations.

Only Fred Harris has attempted to provoke meaningful discussion about the distribution of economic and social power, to treat American politics in class terms. But Harris's substantive programs are not very different from the rest of the liberal candidates, and his neo-populist perspective often leads him to propose anachronistic solutions which would not bring about the far-reaching changes his ideology points to. But the terms of analysis that Harris has used in his campaign are a refreshing antidote to the politics of anti-political deception, fear, and hatred that have so far dominated the 1976 presidential campaign.