Bradley vs. Gore: a pious pair

May 02, 1999|By George F. Will

WASHINGTON -- Bill Bradley's new best friends, whose numbers grow exponentially as his poll numbers progress arithmetically, say he will campaign on big ideas. But right now Mr. Bradley should not distract attention from Vice President Al Gore, whose difficulties multiply. And Mr. Bradley's recent foray into the politics of ideas did not make sensible people impatient for his next foray.

Mr. Gore knows that serving vice presidents who have wanted their parties' nominations have succeeded recently (Richard Nixon in 1960, Hubert Humphrey in 1968, George Bush in 1988). However, Mr. Bush was the first incumbent vice president since Martin Van Buren in 1836 to win the presidency. Mr. Bush won partly because a contented electorate wanted the closest thing to a third Reagan term. Not many voters next year are going to be thinking, "Gosh, it would be really neat to prolong the Clinton years."

Democrats worry about polls that show Texas Gov. George W. Bush, about whom voters know little, handily beating Mr. Gore in places like Michigan. This, in the record 97th month of peacetime economic expansion. And Mr. Gore keeps saying strange things. Never mind his I-was-a-hardscrabble-farmer and his I-invented-the-Internet riffs. Consider two recent beauties.

Pressed by some environmentalists to support aggressive measures to cut carbon dioxide emissions from cars and coal-burning power plants, Mr. Gore responded that he's on their side, but challenged them: "Name a senator who would support me." Does it occur to him that there might be something wrong with an agenda opposed by 100 senators?

Recently Mr. Gore, speaking of his book "Earth in the Balance," told Time magazine: "There's not a statement in that book that I don't endorse. Not one. The evidence has firmed up the positions I sketched there." Oh? What fresh evidence confirms that ours is a "dysfunctional civilization"? Or that automobiles pose "a mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again likely to confront"? Should we then be bombing Detroit instead of Serbia? The certitude that Mr. Gore radiates carries an undercurrent of moral preening -- the suggestion that people who come to different conclusions are morally as well as intellectually flawed. On the evidence of Mr. Bradley's recent speech on race, he can match Mr. Gore stride for stride in the sanctimony sweepstakes.

Mr. Bradley's speech at Cooper Union in Manhattan was long on earnestness. We all should "look deeper into the soul of America" and pursue "racial healing," which is thwarted by "white indifference and black suspicion." Many white Americans "harbor absurd stereotypes about all people of color." We need "candid talk." And so on.

This is familiar. On July 10, 1991, in a remarkably unpleasant "open letter" to President Bush, Mr. Bradley accused Mr. Bush of hypocrisy and of "shamelessly" engaging in "race-baiting." On July 16, 1991, Mr. Bradley implicitly praised himself for "speaking candidly," and the "moral courage" to avoid "easy evasions" about race, by faulting others for not speaking as he does. His "candid talk" included falsely accusing Ronald Reagan of saying that "all female black Americans are welfare queens."

He even left the impression that the surge of murders among young blacks after 1984 was the result of GOP presidents, not crack cocaine. On April 30, 1992, when the Los Angeles riots followed the initial acquittal of the police in the Rodney King beating case, Mr. Bradley again described America as "a society that does not talk honestly about race."

Mr. Bradley's belief that Americans are not sufficiently and properly preoccupied with race may resonate among Democratic activists. Many of them endorse identity politics, the theory that individuals are irrevocably defined not by reasoned choices but by accidents of birth -- by membership in a racial, ethnic or sexual group.

However, it is arguable that identity politics, and obsessing about race, is a plague. Mr. Bradley wants to "overcome our divisions" and "get to a time when, in novelist Toni Morrison's words, `race exists, but it doesn't matter.' "

But his self-advertised candor does not extend to even considering the possibility that reaching such a time is made more difficult by some things Democrats cherish -- affirmative action, categorical representation (the theory that the interests of a group can only be understood and represented by members of that group) and the rest of the racial spoils system.

Mr. Bradley cannot hope (who can?) to beat Mr. Gore in the sanctimony sweepstakes. So he should avoid implying that America's failure to measure up to his standard of racial honesty results not from honest differences of opinions among decent people, but from the moral inadequacies of those who do not share his opinions.

George F. Will is a syndicated columnist.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.