The Civil Rights Initiative Is in Danger of Sinking : California: Economic and political clout is needed to get it on the ballot and to sap energy from the pro-quota forces.

The “California civil rights initiative” has received so much early publicity and overwhelming support in public opinion polls that many people assume it’s a sure bet to win in the November 1996 election. But the bellwether ban on state-sponsored, ethnic-gender preferences hasn’t even qualified for the ballot. High-level indecision and lack of financial commitment have slowed the campaign to gather more than 700,000 signatures by Feb. 21.

Much is at stake in this populist crusade, including control of the White House. A well-funded, vigorous campaign would complicate, if not doom, Bill Clinton’s chances of claiming the must-win Golden State’s electoral votes. A hugely successful initiative could be the Republicans’ dream and the Democrats’ nightmare. The problem is making it happen.

Fund-raising thus far has been difficult and tricky. Even if the initiative qualifies for the November ballot, a hefty war chest will be needed to combat a well-funded opposition campaign through the media. The politically correct education and entertainment establishments are not likely to let it pass without a fight.

UC Regent and businessman Ward Connerly has taken the organizational helm for the initiative. His involvement is likely to trigger more active participation of the state’s most powerful quota-warrior: Gov. Pete Wilson. But if these and other events do not properly play out, the initiative could limp along or fold entirely, with disastrous consequences.

A botched or weak referendum campaign would demoralize a huge majority of citizens fed up with quotas and confirm widespread cynicism that business and government elites are indifferent to merit and fair-play standards championed by middle- and working-class Americans of every hue and gender. Indeed, these “temporary” programs proliferated largely because most CEOs and high government officials refused to “just say no” to quotas. Now the first drive to end state-sanctioned preferences is jeopardized by their reluctance to “just say yes” to major campaign contributions.

With Democrats’ paralysis taken for granted, a weak or failed initiative campaign would be blamed on Republicans’ failure of nerve. Rank-and-file GOP organizations quickly endorsed the measure, but many leaders and major contributors have stalled or backed away, in part because of flirtation with Colin Powell, a “level the playing field” advocate. Post-Powell, however, further GOP ambivalence toward the proposed initiative risks the party’s solid gains among working and middle-class Americans still nervous about the rapidly changing economy. In the event of economic downturns, this base may be vulnerable to class-based arguments that are supplanting race-and-gender themes in the writings of left-leaning commentators.

Newt Gingrich recently penned a letter of support for the civil rights initiative, but the speaker reportedly would rather postpone affirmative action as a topic of national debate for several months, or until more pressing budget and welfare battles are settled. But the initiative train has left the station. As Center for Equal Opportunity President Linda Chavez warned a small gathering of supporters in Los Angeles six months ago, the civil rights initiative represents the best opportunity for signaling an end to the nation’s slide into preferential policies. Once lost, such opportunity and momentum may not soon return.

Indeed, an enfeebled or collapsed initiative would recharge the corporate-university-government diversity industry, a sprawling policy movement now stalled but gathering steam in anticipation of a second Clinton administration. Without the sharp warning of a successful measure, a second-term Clinton White House would be emboldened to implement all manner of diversity mandates, including those just proposed by the Labor Department’s highly ideological Glass Ceiling Commission. And, since the Supreme Court reads the election returns, anything but a resounding victory for the civil rights initiative might endanger the court’s slim 5-4 majorities against ethnic gender preferences, especially should a reelected Clinton nominate new justices. Perhaps this fearful vision is why there is little public or private support by major corporations.

America’s own Berlin Wall of political correctness, built on cultural relativism and proportional politics, will continue to crumble. But remaining battlements cast long shadows of fear and silence. Talk is hardly cheap; it is still career-threatening in many institutions to question ethnic-gender preferences. But critical commentary now must be joined with significant economic and political clout to propel the initiative to resounding victory; the task will be far more costly and difficult if postponed.