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.

"Governor Dukakis took the high road on this campaign initially, that we would not get caught up in a mudslinging campaign," says Christopher Georges '86, who works on the Democratic contender's issues staff. "It didn't work." Georges says he has watched policy questions and issues gradually lose ground in the campaign.

Kennedy School Lecturer Martin Linsky, whose research has focused on campaigns and the media, similarly criticizes Dukakis for being "slow to react to data that he doesn't consider serious, or credible. [This] creates a problem."

"If you start out by thinking that the Pledge [of Allegiance] won't be taken seriously, it's a different problem when you finally react," Linsky says.

Those who agree that image--typified by Bush speaking at a flag factory or Dukakis riding a tank--has overwhelmed the real policy questions, blame a number of factors.

Mark Schlesinger, assistant director of the Center for Health and Human Resources Policy at the Kennedy School and a health policy adviser to Dukakis, says that both candidates' fears of the budget deficit and the voters' unwillingness to pay higher taxes have led to "borderline deceptive" proposals.

Schlesinger points to proposals for the 37 million Americans without health insurance as examples. Bush has suggested allowing people to buy into medicaid, offering a $200 million subsidy, while Schlesinger estimates that $20 billion would be needed. Dukakis has proposed a bill requiring employers to offer health insurance as a benefit, without discussing the public funding which would it would entail. (One member of the Dukakis campaign conceded that, at least on health policy issues, the Democrats may have provided less than the full story.)

Indeed, such caution may not be unreasonable--some pundits have attributed Walter Mondale's 1984 landslide defeat to his expressed intention to raise taxes.

This tendency towards hedging, according to Schlesinger, has made the 1988 contest unique. "There really were a lot of issues talked about, but superficially...it was a strange juxtaposition," he says.

With regard to defense policy, Carnesale observes that proposing cuts can be as dangerous as proposing increases. The obvious solution? "The secret the Bush campaign learned was that you could be interestingwithout saying anything," says Carnesale, notingthat "interesting only has to be interesting for30 seconds."

Dukakis domestic policy adviser Gene Sperlingcites the attention given to polls as the mostfrustrating effect of the media, saying that thiscrowded out some of the more substantive issues."After this election, it should be worth peoplecontemplating that," he says.

Some feel that substantive, accurate newscoverage is available--but not from all sources.Porter says that while "sound bites" andcatchphrases have dominated the networks, "ifsomeone watched MacNeil/Lehrer [on publictelevision] every night, they'd know an enormousamount about where the candidates stand."

Media expert Goldman sees the press as workingagainst the Democrats. "Conservatives would haveyou believe that there's a liberal bias. But it'sthe opposite--the media is frozen in fear of beingseen as liberal," he says.

Despite Carnesale's substantive role in thecampaign, he notes with irony that most reportershave asked him not about foreign affairs, butabout the Dukakis-Kennedy School connection.

Linsky and Lindsey agree that, while specificson issues have not received primary attention fromthe press and public, voters have gotten a clearsense of both presidential aspirants.

Linsky does not wish that voters had a greaterinterest in the nuts and bolts of policy. "Thereare lots of people who think they're the onlyintelligent voters on the earth. I have a problemwith that assumption," says Linsky. To him,qualities such as "communication, leadership andguts" are just as important.

All of which means that George Washington, ourFounding Father, was perhaps the greatestpolitical pundit of them all