Two hundred years ago, when the U.S. was about to elect its first president, the fledgling nation seriously considered enthroning a king--their choice for the crown was George Washington. The general refused the offer, but he did admit that "the utility;--nay necessity" of such a powerful figurehead might one day arrive.

Judging by the predominance of image and personality in this year's presidential contest, that time may well be 1988.

"We feel more of a need for kings" than competent politicians, says Kennedy School Academic Dean Albert Carnesale, who has advised both the Reagan administration and the Dukakis campaign on foreign policy issues. "Kings are not about issues...if your only interest is getting elected, you've got to run as king."

The debate over the role of substantive issues in political campaigns is not a new one among pundits and the press. But as voters prepare to cast their ballots for Vice President George Bush or Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, even the academics and consultants responsible for developing the issues are questioning the role that substantive policy questions have had, and the amount of attention they deserve.

Assistant Professor of Economics Lawrence Lindsey, an adviser to the Bush camp, believes that all a campaign can do is present a candidate's general approach. "I don't know if the details of a flexible freeze, an individual savings account or the capital gains issue are of particular interest to voters," says Lindsey. He does concede that image has played a large role in this fall's race, which he blames largely on the press.

Lindsey does not feel that the vice president has tempered his views for the sake of image--although he charges Dukakis with changing his position on defense. This is not to say that either candidate sticks to the relevant issues. As Lindsey notes, the ever-present discussion of drugs and support of the American Civil Liberties Union are hardly urgent to any President's tenure. "But it is indicative of [a candidate's] approach," he adds.

Just how far have Bush or Dukakis been willing to stray to convey an approach? In the case of the Republicans, an early resort to negative campaigning may be one indication.

As for the Democrats, they have been accused not of saying nasty things, but of saying nothing. Their platform was intentionally vague, and Bush partisans claim that their supposedly negative attacks were simply attempts to make the differences between the candidates clear.

In the words of Bush campaign spokesman David Sandor, an attempt by Dukakis to "move towards the center" at the Democratic convention made it "incumbent on us to define Dukakis."

Roger Porter, who teaches government and business at the Kennedy School and has advised Bush on economic and trade policy, does not think that there is a great deal to separate the candidates on foreign policy issues--which may be some evidence that the battle is truly being fought at the center.

"Both are in favor of arms control...and are hopeful that changes in the Soviet Union will materialize," Porter says. "There's been an effort to do comparison campaigning...to distinguish, or differentiate or define the issues."

Dukakis' camp sees such attempts at definition as simply mudslinging. "I think issues like the Pledge [of Allegiance] and the release of one furloughed prisoner are the cutting issues of our time," says Michael Goldman, a senior media consultant to Dukakis, with no small amount of sarcasm. "If [Americans] make their decision to vote for Bush on those issues, that's all that matters."

"The reality is that [the Bush campaign] are sleazebags--they have a candidate with no moral center, who has allowed himself to be manipulated by people who don't care," says Goldman. "Dukakis' weakness is that he thinks education on the issues moves voters. In fact, Willie Horton [a Massachusetts convict who committed rape and murder while on furlough] moves voters."

Although the Bush campaign does not consider the Pledge of Allegiance and Massachusetts furlough program to be non-issues, Sandor blames the press for their dominance. "We talked about other issues maybe 10 times more," he stresses.

From the Dukakis camp, one hears a mixture of pride in keeping a positive tone, and disappointment that their candidate did not seem willing to return the fire soon enough.