(FORTUNE Magazine) – THE ECONOMIC AGENDA of the Democratic Party's presidential nominee is becoming clear. Quick, you say, forget the agenda, what's his name? Sorry, that's still a mystery after 18 primaries. But a close look at what the candidates say they want to do, what they have done in the past, and what their basic philosophies seem to be suggests that while they differ a bit at the margins, the core of their policy is the same. Says Democratic strategist Kirk O'Donnell, a longtime aide to retired House Speaker Tip O'Neill: ''The bottom line is we have a bunch of liberals running.'' If one of them wins in November, the post- Reagan era will be a far different, and less hospitable, place for business. ''Liberal,'' of course, doesn't quite mean what it used to. Today's Democratic candidates all preach a gospel of deficit reduction that was hardly part of the New Deal canon. But they do want government to grow in power, if not size. And they are itching to spend: New programs would blossom in pretty familiar Democratic soil, such as education, housing, and health care. The Democratic hopefuls would raise taxes substantially on corporations and on the wealthy, whom they believe have benefited excessively from Reagan's tax cuts. Getting to sound like Walter Mondale all over again? The Democrats have thought of that. Says Jeff Faux, president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute, which Democrats look to for ideas: ''The mistake Mondale made in 1984 was pitching a program of tax, tax, but not spend, spend. Democrats need to get back to tax, tax, spend, spend, because that means elect, elect.'' Investment bankers would have more to worry about than aggressive Republican prosecutors. The Democrats are taking aim at what they love to call the casino society on Wall Street. All the candidates would seek legislation to limit takeovers and stamp out greenmail. Convinced that the merger boom resulted at least in part from Reagan's easygoing antitrust policy, they would tighten that up too. The Reverend Jesse Jackson put it in rhyme: ''Corporations can merge and then purge workers and submerge our economy.'' The other candidates picked up the theme, if not the rhythm. ''This merger and acquisition binge is not contributing to the productive side of our economy,'' thunders Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. ''We're spending millions of dollars on financial games. And very good companies are being forced to borrow vast sums to defend themselves.'' Any Democrat would push affirmative action and also toughen enforcement of environmental and trade laws. But Congressman Richard Gephardt's unexpectedly poor showing throughout import-battered regions of the South makes outright protectionism unlikely. Indeed, the trade bill's Gephardt amendment, which provides for automatic retaliation against certain countries with trading surpluses, is now floundering on Capitol Hill. The Democrats' biggest new idea is the notion of public-private partnerships. A descendant of the much maligned notion of industrial policy pushed by Mondale among others, the idea is to get business, labor, and government working together to help troubled regions as well as mature and emerging industries. What's different about the partnership model, at least theoretically, is that decision-making would be more bottom-up than top-down. Who is likely to face George Bush, the Reagan heir, in the fall? Dukakis is still the front-runner, by a whisker. Though he failed to win a single delegate in Illinois, his count has reached 465, just ahead of Jackson's 461. Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Jr., who washed out in Illinois too, is third with the 355 delegates he won mostly in the South on Super Tuesday. But Gore is heading into a string of primaries in Northern industrial states short on money, organization, and message. He may well have trouble increasing his total. Bringing up the rear are Illinois Senator Paul Simon, with 172 delegates, and Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt, with 145. Gephardt and Simon have traded places. Gephardt was strong early and then faded. Simon was languishing / until he cashed in on his 34 years as a plucky, do-gooding Illinois pol. Neither can expect to win much from here on, but they are likely to hang on to their delegates so they can be at the table if, as seems increasingly likely, the Democrats have to do some negotiating to produce a nominee. Dukakis's goal is to continue building his delegate totals so that he becomes the inevitable, if not exuberant, choice. There is no way he can win the 2,082 delegates needed for the nomination by the last primaries on June 7, but the Dukakis camp believes he can wrap it up before the convention anyway by wooing party leaders, who make up most of the 645 uncommitted so-called superdelegates, and delegates pledged to others who will have dropped out of the race by then. For Dukakis's competitors it's now a game of king of the hill, in which they try to knock him off from a variety of angles. Operating from a solid base of black support, Jackson will try to widen his appeal among white working people and limousine liberals. Gore will continue to pitch his message to more conservative white workers and independents. Gephardt will attempt to woo white industrial workers, farmers, and seniors. Simon will keep trying to remind people how wonderful the New Deal years were. On paper Jackson would seem to have the best shot to dethrone Dukakis. In state after state he has won most of the black vote and as much as 31% of the vote in mostly white Maine. If he keeps it up, he could get more than 1,000 delegates. But the superdelegates are unlikely to support him, because they do not think he can win. A Time poll finds 49% of registered voters would vote Republican in November if Jackson headed the Democratic ticket; 41% if he were the party's vice presidential pick. Race is clearly part of the problem. On the other hand, race has helped Jackson too. Were he a white liberal minister with no elective experience, the reverse political image of Pat Robertson, it seems unlikely he would be doing any better now than the fast-fading former televangelist. In addition to his lack of political experience, Jackson has what are euphemistically known as ''negatives.'' Although he's a charismatic leader, he's a poor manager. Operation Push in Chicago, which he led for 12 years, has had a history of chaotic finances. Jackson himself says he is a ''tree shaker, not a jellymaker.'' He also has a tendency to antagonize potential allies, including fellow civil rights leaders and Jews who remain outraged over his onetime friendship with Louis Farrakhan, leader of the separatist Black Muslims, and his 1984 reference to New York City as ''hymietown.'' ONE BIG QUESTION is whether Gore can find a way to challenge Dukakis. They are very different men. Dukakis sells himself as a manager -- he turned around a state, he can turn around a country. Gore sells himself as, well, what is he selling? Prep school, Harvard, and a job as a reporter on the Tennessean in Nashville preceded his career in politics, which began in the shadow of Senator Al Gore Sr. He served eight years in the House, four in the Senate. At 39, he hasn't had time for much else. Gore isn't as popular in Congress as Gephardt, who has the support of 80 superdelegates from the House. But Gore has impressed colleagues with his brains and diligence -- on a few specialized issues. He made himself an expert on arms control, and has taken a lead in pushing the Midgetman missile over the ten-warhead MX because he thinks the single-warhead Midgetman makes a less tempting target for a Soviet first strike. Dukakis, who would eliminate the Midgetman, has no experience with such complicated issues. He has also shown a worrisome tendency to place excessive confidence in such international organizations as the United Nations to solve world problems. On domestic matters, Dukakis is a tad more liberal than the Tennessee Senator. Both get high marks from such watchdogs of the left as labor and environmental groups. Gore has the looks of a movie star from the era when looks meant something, and Dukakis would score high on an earnest meter, particularly when he is speaking a language other than English. But neither have flashy personalities. The joke on the Gore campaign trail: ''How can you tell Gore from his Secret Service men? He's the stiff one.'' Dukakis, who can turn hard-edged when answering questions, sometimes seems arrogant. Many Democrats think Dukakis and Gore would make a dream duo, offering the party a balance of regions, experience, age, and ideas. (The one drawback, says a Gore backer only half jokingly, is that Gore, who is six-two, would tower over the five-eight Dukakis.) If they could get together before the convention, Dukakis could lock up the nomination. Either way Jesse Jackson will get into the bartering.

What would Jackson ask in return for helping forge a ticket that did not include him? Except for the presidency, Jackson says, ''I'm not looking for a job.'' Insiders say he wants respect, which he's already earned. In addition he'll insist on substantial black representation in any Democratic Administration, and a role in policy development, both of which he'll get. Any Democrat who sneaks past Bush into the White House will have to confront a budget deficit of some $150 billion. Democratic strategists see a two-track approach: First, a multiyear deficit-reduction plan focused on modest defense cuts and tax increases; second, a series of social and economic ''investment'' initiatives financed by business or by new federal revenues. Says Jeff Faux of the Economic Policy Institute: ''It's a disaster for Democrats to wait to close the deficit door before going for new spending. It would take too long.'' Such a stance also suggests that the deficit door may never close. All the candidates promise to tighten up on Pentagon procurement -- what else is new -- and to pressure U.S. allies to share more of the costs of global defense. The Democrats would also cut spending on the Strategic Defense Initiative. Gore, however, wants to build two more aircraft carrier task forces. ANY DEMOCRATIC BUDGET plan would also include new taxes. In fact Dan Rostenkowski, Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, recently said he expects ''substantial revenue increases'' next year, no matter who is President. Dukakis loves to talk about a tax amnesty and enforcement program that he claims would eventually yield $35 billion a year. It has a vague ring of Ronald Reagan's campaign chatter in 1980 about how much money he would save by eliminating ''fraud and waste'' in the federal government. Tax amnesties have been successful in many states, including Massachusetts, but nobody has ever tried one on the federal level. Though state tax enforcement has been traditionally lax compared with that of the Internal Revenue Service, Dukakis is convinced an amnesty can work for the federal government too. He says state officials expected to pull in about $7 million, and got $87 million. Moreover, he points out, the bonus is that once the cheaters are smoked out they stay on the tax rolls. Gore would like to see the corporate tax rate go up. He opposed its reduction from an average of 40% in 1987 to 34%. Though he doesn't mention a figure, aides say he would be happy to see the rate rise again. Gore would put a federal tax on any purchase, other than real estate, over $30,000 -- a Mercedes, a sailboat, or a diamond tiara. He would also seek higher capital gains taxes on most inherited assets, probably by changing the basis of valuation from the date of inheritance to the date of purchase. Jackson and Gephardt would increase the corporate minimum tax. Jackson would raise the top individual rate from 28% to 32% for people with taxable incomes over $192,000 a year. Gephardt strongly supports an oil import fee. Jackson and Gore say they'd consider one as part of an overall energy plan. Dukakis is opposed to an import fee, which would hurt the energy-dependent Northeast. He would win friends in the oil industry by seeking repeal of that relic of the energy crisis, the windfall profits tax. Since it applies to oil at $18 a barrel and above, the tax has been moot for years, but the industry would like to get rid of it anyway. Gore and Gephardt would repeal it too. Dukakis also wants to tax capital gains on sales of U.S. securities by foreign investors. To a man, the Democratic candidates say no emphatically to a national value- added tax or sales tax, which could raise huge amounts of money while encouraging overall savings and investment. Says Dukakis: ''That kind of tax hits the little guy the hardest.'' The Democrats even oppose more targeted consumption levies on gasoline, alcohol, and cigarettes on the grounds that they are regressive. Not surprisingly, the Democrats see little opportunity to cut social spending. All oppose any reduction in cost-of-living increases for Social Security and other entitlements. Only Gore talks about increasing the taxable portion of Social Security for upper-income beneficiaries, a kind of backdoor means test. The other candidates reject any tampering with Social Security benefits. Dukakis drew approving smiles at the Judeo Christian Health Clinic in Tampa with this line: ''I see no reason why older people cannot get their COLAs every year.'' Financing new spending initiatives is where the Democrats get creative. In some cases, their solution is pay-as-you-go. A prime example is the long-term home care bill proposed by Florida Congressman Claude Pepper and endorsed by Dukakis, Simon, and Gephardt. Gore is working on his own version. The bill would dramatically expand health care benefits for the elderly, and cost $24.8 billion over the first five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But the measure includes its own financing mechanism, an increase in the portion of Medicare benefits that is taxable. The new tax would raise $30.6 billion over the same period, for a net revenue gain of $5.8 billion to spend on other government ventures. In other cases, the Democratic candidates would simply make business provide benefits that government no longer wants to pay for, which amounts to an indirect tax on business. Dukakis, for example, supports a bill introduced by Senator Edward Kennedy that would require most employers with more than ten workers to offer health insurance. (The cost to business would be $27 billion a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.) Jackson would require pension funds to invest 10% of their assets in housing, transportation, and infrastructure projects. All the candidates support current legislation raising the minimum wage and requiring companies to notify workers of plant closings and pay for training. The Democrats' most creative approach to low-cost liberalism, however, is the notion of joint public-private partnerships. At campaign stops across the country, Dukakis tells crowds that such partnerships in Massachusetts helped turn the state from an economic basket case into an economic showcase. In fact, the so-called Massachusetts miracle was due primarily to the explosive growth of the computer industry that developed in the shadow of Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Still, Dukakis's partnerships did help prolong the high-tech boom and spread it into areas that might not otherwise have shared in the overall growth. In the once blighted mill town of Lowell, a partnership pulled together state and federal aid to lure the headquarters of Wang Laboratories from a nearby community. Today Lowell is a city of restored Victorian buildings, clean parks, and low unemployment. Dukakis also used partnerships to attack a broad spectrum of social problems from urban blight to housing, child care, and welfare reform. Such activism comes at a cost: Since Dukakis took office for the second time in 1983, the size of the Massachusetts budget has grown a stunning 73%. He had little trouble financing his burgeoning government, since tax dollars rolled in as a result of robust growth. Even so, Dukakis tried to increase corporate and real estate sales taxes, and backed popular personal and property tax cuts only reluctantly. ''Personally, he's tight,'' says archcritic Barbara Anderson, executive director of the Massachusetts Citizens for Limited | Taxation. ''But he spends our money prodigiously.'' In a government strapped with megadeficits, no president will have that luxury. Dukakis, who still buys his suits off-price in Filene's Basement, believes he can replicate his partnership model in Washington on the cheap. First, he would redirect existing funds -- urban and rural development monies, small business loans, and the like -- to targeted projects. He would also create a modest $500 million development fund to provide low-cost loans and grants. One risk is that such programs could grow out of control. Says Kirsten Nyrop, an economic adviser to Al Gore: ''There are so many needy communities around the country, this could be a huge budget-buster.'' Also, politics might well sneak in. Asked where the first partnerships might be located, Dukakis replied Iowa, Texas's Rio Grande Valley, Minnesota's iron range, and central and western Pennsylvania. Those just happened to be key areas in the early delegate contests. The candidates generally would take a harder line against mergers and takeovers. Dukakis, for example, signed a tough antitakeover bill in Massachusetts. At least Gore would raise some revenue in the process. He is talking about a tax on short-term stock transactions, which would deprive raiders of some profit. But like most Republicans, the Democratic candidates would continue liberal policies for R&D joint ventures such as Microelectronics & Computer Technology Corp., a group of high-tech companies working together in Texas to develop a new generation of computer technology. The Democrats say they would be tough on industries seeking import protection. They would insist that management and labor first work out agreements to boost productivity, which could include wage concessions, capacity cutbacks, worker retraining, even the elimination of a corporate jet. Says Paula Stern, a Democrat who served as chairman of the International Trade Commission in the Reagan Administration: ''Reagan gave industries protection without getting concessions. Democrats won't give away the goodies without asking for something in return.'' It sounds logical, but it also means more meddling in the way companies run their businesses. IN INTERNATIONAL FINANCE the Democrats would be more activist, according to Stuart Eizenstat, a Washington lawyer who was Jimmy Carter's domestic policy chief. He says they would be more apt to pursue a formal international agreement to stabilize exchange rates. Though many banks have been busily reducing their Third World debt through debt-equity swaps and simple write- offs, the Democrats would pressure them to move faster. The economic agenda of the Democratic candidate would certainly benefit those industries targeted for help, like housing and some heavy industry. But highflying Wall Street bankers and takeover tycoons would have to trim their sails. And businessmen generally would find that ''partnership'' means higher taxes and more government intervention. After four years of well-intentioned Democratic activism, many businessmen may long for the return of Adam Smith.