Supine Neglect : A defensive Bush is ignoring winning issues - affirmative action, Internet taxation among issues that could help define George W. Bush

National Review, Oct 23, 2000 by Kate O'Beirne, Ponnuru, Ramesh, John J. Miller

Conventional wisdom holds that the issues in the presidential race favor Al Gore, so George W. Bush has to win on personality. In fact, Bush can gain an advantage on several issues in this race, from Social Security to taxes to prescription drugs. But to the extent that the conventional wisdom is right, it's largely because Bush has let the Democrats choose what "the issues" would be. Bush has neglected, or at least under-emphasized, a number of issues that could help him.

RACIAL PREFERENCES Thousands of Americans, on receiving their census forms last spring, questioned the forms' obsession with race. The version sent to most households contained only six queries, two of which asked recipients about the color of their skin. In a country that becomes less racist with each generation-to the point where racism today really can't be described as a major obstacle to black advancement-this seemed improper, even antiquated. A poll by the American Civil Rights Institute found that 77 percent of voters (including 65 percent of blacks) thought the government should quit asking about race. Even when the question was posed in a loaded manner-respondents were told that getting rid of the questions might prevent authorities from identifying some forms of discrimination-58 percent still supported this change (59 percent among blacks).

A census occurs during a presidential election only once every 20 years-and here was a gift-wrapped opportunity for George W. Bush to confront the way Washington deals with race. Americans, it is obvious, are hungry for a new approach. They are ready for a separation of race and state-and would welcome a Republican challenge not only to the census questions, but also to that driving force behind the whole racial-spoils system: preferences.

Support for racial preferences is a major handicap for the Democrats, because it splits their base. Voters in both California and Washington State-neither one a GOP stronghold-have banned preferences over the last four years. In 1996, black voters in California were three times as likely to support the anti-preferences Proposition 209 as they were to support Bob Dole. Even Joe Lieberman endorsed 209. (He has since retreated, telling members of the Congressional Black Caucus in August: "I have supported affirmative action. I do support affirmative action. And I will support affirmative action.")

That's the beauty of a message grounded in the principle of colorblind equal opportunity. If words mean what they say, something like Proposition 209 is impossible to oppose. If the matter were pressed in a presidential campaign, it would immediately throw Democrats on the defensive. Polls consistently show a widespread dislike of racial preferences, and this antipathy crosses demographic lines. A 1996 Public Agenda poll showed that 64 percent of white parents thought majority-black school districts should hire the best teachers available regardless of their race-as did 77 percent of black parents.

Republican political consultants usually tell clients that challenging preferences threatens to mobilize liberal voters-as if the Democrats won't resort to ugly racial politics anyway. This is a party that has blamed the GOP for church burnings. It's time to hit back.

BILINGUAL EDUCATION George W. Bush probably doesn't need to worry about losing Arizona in November, even though a September poll of registered voters by KAET-TV had him trailing Al Gore in the state by 10 points. It was probably a bad sample, loaded with Democratic respondents. That's all the more reason to consider another one of the poll's findings: a 51 point lead (71 percent to 20 percent) for Proposition 203, a ballot initiative to eliminate bilingual education. It's modeled on California's Proposition 227, which passed two years ago.

Opposing bilingual education rallies conservatives and attracts liberal support the way few other "culture war" issues do; as direct-mail firms learned years ago, official English and related causes do well because Republicans aren't the only people willing to write checks for them. Joe Lieberman has been a skeptic on bilingual education, too. Even the New York Times editorial page has been relentlessly critical of such programs.

Fighting to repeal bilingual education isn't just good politics, it's good policy. Immigrant students in California already have seen their test scores rise after just two years in the new program. A recent study in New York City found that 54 percent of seventh-grade English learners enrolled in immersion courses posted above-average test scores, compared to 40 percent of their peers in bilingual education. The gap was even wider in math: 70 percent for immersion students, to 51 percent for those in bilingual programs.

Nobody can deny that immigrants-and especially their children-need to learn English if they are to flourish in the United States. Making sure the schools teach it to them is a matter of Hispanic empowerment. In fact, if the Republicans don't pick up on this issue soon-the GOP's 1998 nominee for governor of California actually made a commercial against Prop. 227-who's to say the Democrats won't run with it themselves?