Rivals Woo Racial Coalition by Different Paths : Democrats: Brown invokes civil rights agenda of the ‘60s; Clinton emphasizes personal responsibility and a spirit of reconciliation.

In their struggle for black votes in today’s New York presidential primary, Bill Clinton and Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. have highlighted a profound generational division among Democrats about how to build an interracial coalition that can take back the White House.

Brown has embraced the agenda forged by the leading civil rights organizations during the late 1960s--and fiercely defended since--that stresses the obligations of the majority white society to minorities on issues ranging from social spending to affirmative action. For many voters, both white and black, Brown’s commitment to that approach is symbolized by his association with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who the former California governor has picked as his preferred running mate.

By contrast, Clinton, reflecting a tough reassessment of the ‘60s vision among some liberals, has offered a message of mutual obligation: He has called on government to provide more opportunity, but demanded greater “personal responsibility” from Wall Street executives and welfare recipients alike. Clinton also delivers in almost every speech an impassioned plea for racial reconciliation.

With that carefully balanced appeal, the Arkansas governor has had striking success through the early primaries in reassembling the traditional Democratic coalition of blacks and working-class whites--an alliance that has collapsed in recent national campaigns, partly over racially tinged issues such as busing, affirmative action, welfare and crime.

Today’s vote in New York offers the sternest test yet of Clinton’s ability to maintain his black support in the face of the more traditional civil rights appeal Brown has embraced both rhetorically and through his link with Jackson. But it will also test Brown’s ability to attract white voters while so closely aligned with Jackson--a polarizing figure in New York--and the liberal racial agenda he symbolizes.

With its diverse Democratic electorate, dominated by roughly equal shares of blacks, Jews and white Catholics, and its history of racially conscious voting, New York has presented Brown and Clinton with the same excruciating balancing act that will face the party’s nominee in November: winning blacks without alienating whites, and vice versa.

So far, each candidate has articulated different messages on racial issues that reflect divergent visions of how to rebuild a majority coalition.

Brown has placed himself squarely in the tracks of the leading civil rights organizations, which argue that the gaps between white and black America are explained almost entirely by racism, past and present, and require targeted government assistance to eradicate.

Clinton’s view more closely reflects a contrary intellectual tradition, with roots in Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s controversial 1965 study on the growth of single-parent families in the black community and the work of black sociologist William Julius Wilson, who maintains broad economic changes, such as the decline of low-skill manufacturing jobs, now hurt blacks more than embedded racism.

Like these theorists, Clinton downplays programs targeted specifically at minorities in favor of race-neutral initiatives, such as increased education and training, and argues that government aid alone won’t end inner-city distress unless accompanied by changes in the personal behavior of the poor.

The contrast between these visions was vividly illustrated when Brown and Clinton met in a New York City debate on March 29.

When Brown was asked how to deal with high rates of crime and out-of-wedlock births among the inner-city poor, he dismissed cultural factors and attributed the problems to social neglect.

“If you bring people down, if you treat them like second-rate human beings, you get exactly what is happening,” Brown declared. “When a little child is born in a neighborhood with crack dealers, of course he has a propensity to turn to crime. You have to create a reason not to be drug dependent, not to have children out of wedlock, and you do that through economic security.”

Clinton also emphasized the need for government to make new investments in urban needs, but broke from Brown by insisting public initiatives alone would not be sufficient. He re-emphasized that theme Sunday at a black church in Brooklyn.

“If I become President, it is my solemn duty to try to provide more opportunity for the people of this country,” Clinton said as the congregation applauded. “But if I become President, you have responsibilities too. For no politician can do anything for a people they are not willing to do for themselves.”

This philosophical divide between Brown and Clinton governs their approaches to issues with racial overtones.

Asked in the March 29 debate about programs that set aside a guaranteed percentage of government contracts for minorities, Clinton said he could support such initiatives only if “price and quality (are) the determining consideration.” Brown endorsed such efforts without qualification.

Clinton has called for government to increase spending on training and education of welfare recipients, and then, after two years on the rolls, require them to take public service jobs if none are available in the private sector. Brown’s welfare reform plan would allow, but not require, recipients to convert their grant into a voucher that could be used to supplement pay in private employment.

On another issue, Clinton has said that while he would not have signed a controversial New Jersey welfare reform, which denies further benefits to women who have additional out-of-wedlock children while on public assistance, he would, as President, grant the state a waiver to experiment with the approach. Brown has denounced the idea and said he would not allow the state to implement it.

Many civil rights leaders and Jackson allies have bridled against Clinton’s use of the personal responsibility theme, viewing it as a code word for stoking white resentment. But through the early primaries, Clinton has won the vast majority of both black votes and endorsements from leading black politicians. On Sunday, half a dozen black members of the U.S. House campaigned for him in black churches across New York City.

“Middle-class blacks are the most conservative people in America in terms of their social values,” said Mitchell Moss, director of the urban research center at New York University. “They are the ones who are at greatest risk of crime; they are the ones who have made it on their own. Clinton is appealing to the values they live by.”

Looking toward a general election, many political analysts argue that Clinton’s blend of the liberal opportunity message with conservative calls for responsibility leaves him well-positioned to maintain black support while winning back middle- and working-class whites, who believe the party has asked them to subsidize self-destructive behavior among the poor. But first, Clinton must prove in New York that he can sustain his coalition against Brown’s impassioned assault.