Lively Debate Centers on Inequality

In a lively debate that aired issues rarely discussed so far on the campaign trail, Al Gore and Bill Bradley tumbled over each other Monday to embrace a long list of priorities from civil rights activists.

Appearing before a group of Iowa African Americans and Latinos, both Democrats pledged to fight the flying of the Confederate flag over state buildings in the South; promised to end the practice of racial profiling; and insisted they would appoint Supreme Court justices who would defend affirmative action. Both even called on the Atlanta Braves to suspend or fire relief pitcher John Rocker, who has been criticized for racially derogatory comments he recently made to Sports Illustrated.

Throughout the evening, both men competed to demonstrate sympathy for the agenda of civil rights groups--in the process endorsing an array of socially liberal positions.

One of the most dramatic moments of ideological leapfrog came when Gore and Bradley each criticized the criminal justice system as unfair to minorities and suggested they would seek to reduce sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.

Answering first, Gore addressed the issue in more general terms. “We need to recognize the inequities in our criminal justice system, which have in part resulted in the very high incarceration rate for African Americans,” Gore said. “And I think we have to recognize that while everyone in our country . . . wants to see vigorous enforcement of the law and reduction in crime, there has to be equal enforcement, including in sentencing, and there are disparities in sentencing that need to be addressed.”

Bradley then raised the ante, promising to reduce sentences for first-time nonviolent drug offenders, and to close the disparity in current law that applies mandatory minimum prison sentences for crimes involving a much smaller amount of crack than powdered cocaine.

Civil rights groups say that the disparity is unfair because crimes involving crack are often associated with minorities, while whites tend to be charged with crimes involving powdered cocaine. Those who support tougher sentences for crack say it is necessary because that drug is more often associated with violence.

“There is no question there is unequal justice in the United States; there is also no question that a generation of young African American males are ending up in prison, in large part for nonviolent, first-time drug offenses,” Bradley charged. “The first thing I would do is bring the [sentencing] difference between crack and cocaine much closer together; I would then try to take a look at mandatory, first-time, nonviolent drug offenders and say, ‘Does mandatory sentencing make sense there?’ I don’t think it does.”

After the debate, Gore’s spokesman, Chris Lehane, could not say what specific “disparities in sentencing” the vice president was proposing to address. In the past, the Clinton administration has supported legislation reducing, but not eliminating, the disparity between weights of crack and cocaine that trigger mandatory sentences.

The candidate session was sponsored by the Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum, an alliance of African American and Latino activists in the state. Blacks and Latinos each constitute only 2% of the population here but exert critical influence in the Democratic primaries in other states, such as California, New York and those in the Deep South.

In contrast to most of their encounters, Gore and Bradley on Monday reserved some of their sharpest words for Republicans. While calling for the removal of the Confederate flag “from any government institution,” Gore denounced GOP presidential candidates, such as Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who have refused to take a position on the controversy.

“It’s only the Republican candidates for president who are so scared of the extreme right wing that they will be tolerant of intolerance,” Gore said.

Bradley took a shot at former California Gov. Pete Wilson, who he said had inadvertently inspired more Latino political activists by promoting Proposition 187, the 1994 ballot measure in California that sought to end government benefits for illegal immigrants. “I want to say thank you to Pete Wilson, who was the governor of California who ran a very negative 187 . . . campaign that I strongly opposed,” Bradley said sarcastically. “I want to thank him because he’s brought them forward.”

The audience was a lively force in the debate, shouting approval and disapproval at the candidates’ answers. Even one of the moderators, Tavis Smiley from Black Entertainment Television, generated whoops when he responded to a demonstrator who leaped from the audience to demand that the candidates address global warming.

“I get my 15 minutes [of fame] and this is what happens to me?” he asked as security officials led the young woman away. “You’re on my time; what’s up with that?”

The two rivals joined in lashing Atlanta Braves pitcher Rocker--whose name Bradley mispronounced as Rooker. Bradley went further than Gore, denouncing not only the pitcher but the entire Atlanta Braves organization. “I wouldn’t be disappointed if they fired him,” Bradley said. “Certainly a suspension is in order. . . . I know one thing: This would not have happened at an organization and a team that is attuned to the kind of things that he said.”

On an equally sensitive issue, both men stepped much more carefully around a question involving Al Sharpton, the controversial African American civil rights leader in New York City who has been accused of promoting racial division in the past. Asked if he would meet publicly with Sharpton, Gore dodged the question but noted he had included Sharpton in a private meeting and “was not hesitant to do that.”

Bradley, who met publicly with Sharpton’s group earlier this year, said: “I don’t agree with Al Sharpton on everything, but I think he has got to be given respect and people have to be allowed to grow.”

In response to another question, Gore and Bradley both said they would be open to reviewing state laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting, which a questioner suggested disproportionately disenfranchised blacks.

Likewise, Bradley promised to appoint an administration that “reflects the diversity of the country.” Gore then one-upped him by saying he was “very proud to be a part of the Clinton-Gore administration, which has broken every record” for the appointment of minorities. “I will seek to break that all-time record,” Gore added.

On only a few issues did Gore and Bradley clash. By far the sharpest encounter came over the issue of racial profiling--the policy of some police departments of selecting potential criminal suspects on the basis of race or other ethnic characteristics. Both men said they would issue an executive order barring federal law enforcement agencies from using the practice--with Gore promising to do so on his first day in office.

Bradley then rifled a shot across his bow: “You know, Al, I know that you would issue an order to end racial profiling if you were president of the United States. But we have a president now. You serve with him. I want you to walk down that hallway, walk into his office and say, ‘Sign this executive order today.’ ”

As the audience roared its approval, Gore returned fire: “I don’t think President Clinton needs a lecture from Bill Bradley about how to stand up and fight for African Americans and Latinos.”

But Gore then drew scattered boos when he added: “It’s one thing to walk the walk; it’s another to talk the talk.” Trying to recover, the vice president charged that Sharpe James, the African American mayor of Newark, N.J., was supporting Gore partly because Bradley had failed to get involved in the racial-profiling issue while in the Senate.

The two men also reprised a long-standing argument over Bradley’s proposal to add homosexuals as a protected group under the 1964 Civil Rights Act banning discrimination in public institutions. Gore said that although he would work for “the elimination of any discrimination against gays and lesbians” he considered it “not wise to open up the ’64 civil rights bill in the Republican Congress to a process that could lead to it being seriously damaged and even lost.”

Bradley responded that if society was serious about providing equal rights for gays, amending the Civil Rights Act was the way to do so. “Would I send such a piece of legislation to Congress if I thought the 1964 Civil Rights Act was going to be opened up? Absolutely not. I would never do anything, anything, that could possibly undermine that act.”

*

Times staff writers Mark Z. Barabak, James Gerstenzang and Matea Gold contributed to this story.