WHAT'S IN a name? Ask Joe Kennedy.

Mr. Kennedy, who is related to all the other Kennedys, is the clear frontrunner in the race to succeed the retiring Speaker of the House Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr. as the representative from the Eighth Congressional District. That district--comprised of Boston, Cambridge, and other nearby towns--includes both the blue-collar Democrats of that party's fabled ex-constituency and the limousine liberals who run the political process.

Which makes one pause, considering Kennedy hasn't taken much in the way of an intelligible stand on the deficit, social programs, the military budget, or the rationale of our overall foreign policy.

On the deficit, he says in a recent Crimson interview that the federal government should manage its money better--just like Mr. K. does at the giant non-profit company, Citizens Energy Corporation, that doubles as his political springboard. As for the Pentagon, he says waste should be eliminated. His analysis stops there, and we duly not that anti-waste isn't much more of a platform than anti-crime.

Several of Kennedy's dozen hapless challengers in this superbaby of Democratic primaries have somewhat more to say, and more ground on which to say it. They, unlike him, have served in elective state office. They have drafted and lobbied for legislation that has helped the homeless, the poor, and the un-rich. They know exactly what federal programs they want cut, which beefed up, and which reformed how.

And they are perfectly happy to discuss their plans with anyone who's remotely curious. The only problem is that the local, national and international media, not to mention the proverbial man on the street, are far more interested in K-man wonderment than substantive stands. Complaints that the herd of dark horses don't get enough airtime reached a new high recently. One of their number related that he had been overjoyed to get a call from an out-of-town newspaper, only to realize that the reporter just wanted to talk to him about Kennedy's candidacy.

SINCE MOST LIBERAL politicos have been reluctant to draw the ominous parallels between Kennedy and President Reagan, we'll set them out here.

Alarmingly, both share a discouraged, even despairing view of government's role in society. Reagan, a political outsider, ran on a platform of getting the feds off America's back and has slashed and snipped when he wasn't selling wholesale. Similarly, JPK puts forward no vision of a brighter, fairer country led by responsive lawmakers committed to social justice. He instead opts to try to out-technocrat the conservatives, following the same defeatist logic that led Uncle Teddy '54 to support Gramm-Rudman's prescription for automatic budget cuts.

Even bleaker, Kennedy is embracing the media-heavy, image-building strategy and photogenicism that holds up Reagan's continuing popularity. Perhaps, we fear, his advisor just know better than to let their candidate sound off on issues when he has uncontroversial, un-thought-provoking idolatry to rely on. Unless he unveils new policy statements and starts talking about them, his election would only continue the disturbing trend of style over substance and the corresponding disinterestedness--and disenfranchisement--of the electorate.