Campaign ’96 / ISSUES : California Election Puts Focus on Multiculturalism Concerns : State’s differences confront candidates. Diversity, however, has bred resentment among voters, 80% of whom in ’94 were non-Latino whites.

To Antonio Perez, a native of Mexico who recently became a U.S. citizen after living here for 21 years, diversity is the strength of his adopted nation.

“All around the world, the United States is known as a place of many languages, varying cultures, different nationalities,” Perez, a ranch hand and sometime poet, explained in Spanish after a swearing-in here of more than 1,000 new citizens, mostly immigrants from Latin America and Asia.

But as the March 26 California primary approaches, Perez and other voters are already hearing a lot about a broad sweep of so-called “multicultural” concerns--everything from immigration to affirmative action, bilingualism and gay and lesbian rights. Little of the talk is celebratory.

For assorted reasons--California’s geography, history, economy, its rapidly changing demographics and its peculiar politics--the nation’s most populous state seems ordained as the principal battleground of a series of divisive, candidate-defining issues of contemporary culture. And as the 1994 elections demonstrated, those issues of diversity have also bred resentment among many voters.

“We have a great deal of diversity in California, but, at the same time, there are a lot of people who fear that the state is being split into groups and sub-groups competing for political spoils,” noted Arnold Steinberg, a Los Angeles-based political strategist who usually works with Republican candidates.

Today, for example, Patrick J. Buchanan, the GOP presidential contender who has decried the immigrant “invasion,” is scheduled to visit the U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego, site of the now virtually obligatory photo opportunity for politicians talking tough on illegal immigration.

The state’s multiethnic makeup, so evident on the streets of its major cities, is still largely absent at the ballot box. Exit polls from the 1994 elections showed that more than 80% of all those casting ballots were non-Latino whites, who voted overwhelmingly for Gov. Pete Wilson’s reelection and embraced his basic issue, Proposition 187, which sought to deny most government-funded services to illegal immigrants.

This year, the immigration debate is back, coupled with affirmative action--both now major national concerns that have registered in Washington. Analysts predict that Sen. Bob Dole, seeking political capital for November, will attempt to outflank Buchanan on both fronts.

“Bob Dole needs to grab both of those issues in California before Pat Buchanan poisons them,” said Dan Schnur, press secretary in Wilson’s 1994 campaign.

The November ballot will likely include the so-called California Civil Rights Initiative, championed by Wilson, Dole’s national campaign co-chair. The measure would ban affirmative action in state government and public universities. Dole and Buchanan have backed the initiative.

Dole, a onetime supporter of affirmative action, now says such programs are divisive and have outlived their usefulness. In an opinion piece last year for the Los Angeles Times, the Kansas senator assailed “purveyors of preferences . . . who view every social problem through a racial prism.”

Meantime, Buchanan has labeled affirmative action “un-American,” and pledged, if elected, to issue an executive order ending all “preferential treatment” in federal policy.

President Clinton has attempted to stake out a middle position, defending affirmative action with a policy he calls “mend it, don’t end it.” The Democratic strategy: Frame the California ballot measure as one of gender rather than race. “The initiative destroys the rights of women and girls in California,” argued former State Sen. Art Torres, acting chairman of the California Democratic Party.

Because of its high immigrant population--almost one-in-four Californians is foreign-born, by far the highest such proportion in the nation--the state is also a national proving ground on questions of bilingualism.

Since last fall, Dole has emerged as a major proponent of making English the nation’s official language, though similar laws on the books in many states (including California) have proved largely symbolic. The Senate majority leader has also been increasingly critical of bilingual education.

Likewise, Buchanan has heartily embraced the official-English drive, declaring in campaign material: “One Language, English, for all Americans.”

For his part, President Clinton has defended bilingual education while also extolling the importance of English. The president has not taken a public position on anointing English as the official language.

Regarding immigration, both Republicans and the president are strong proponents of beefed-up enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border, expedited deportations and other get-tough measures.

The president, though, was a vocal opponent of Proposition 187, which sparked a bellwether debate in California and thrust immigration into the national limelight. Both Dole and Buchanan supported the ballot measure.

While all are talking tough on illegal immigration, the candidates exhibit greatly varying stances on restricting legal immigration--a step Congress is now contemplating.

The Clinton administration has generally endorsed the findings of a bipartisan immigration study group, which recommended long-term cuts of up to about one-third.

Dole has said he favors a “modest, temporary reduction” in legal arrivals, but his position is otherwise ill-defined. On the ABC-TV program “This Week with David Brinkley” earlier this month, Dole avoided directly answering a question about a pending Senate bill that would slice legal immigration by 20% immediately and by more more than 40% in a few years.

Buchanan, by contrast--voicing fears that the United States is becoming a Balkanized, “Third World nation”--has backed a five-year moratorium on most legal immigration.

Dole, analysts say, is in the difficult position of trying not to alienate two GOP constituencies: hard-core restrictionists alarmed by the immigrant influx, and corporate interests in high-technology, agribusiness and elsewhere who view immigrant labor as essential.

“There isn’t much middle ground,” noted Ron K. Unz, a Silicon Valley businessman and unsuccessful GOP gubernatorial candidate in 1994. “It’s a hard one to straddle.”

The most recent Times Poll showed that almost half of all respondents favor reductions in legal immigration. But, reflecting the broad ideological divide on the question, almost 40% said that current legal levels should be retained--while 9% favored more legal immigration.

On the question of gay and lesbian rights, Buchanan has again claimed the most controversial position: He has vowed not to appoint openly gay people to high-level positions in his prospective administration.

Dole has condemned discrimination against gays and lesbians, but he opposed their service in the military. Last year, the senator’s presidential campaign returned a $1,000 contribution from the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay GOP activists, but later apologized.

Four years ago, candidate Clinton pledged to allow homosexuals to serve in the military. But intense opposition from the public, the Pentagon and Congress forced the president to back down and adopt a much-maligned “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

California Concerns

Where the candidates stand on multicultural issues:

ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Dole: A onetime supporter of affirmative action, he now says such programs are divisive and have outlived their usefulness.

Buchanan: Has pledged, if elected, to issue an executive order ending all “preferential treatment” in federal policy.

Clinton: Has attempted to stake out a middle position, defending affirmative action with a policy he calls “mend it, don’t end it.”