6/28/00 12:40 p.m.
Bush's CORE Beliefs
Americans back to Lincoln's party?

Robert A. George is an editorial page writer
for the New York Post------------------------------------RAGGEDmail@aol.com

eorge W. Bush delivered a pleasant surprise to a New York audience on Monday.

Based on previous reviews of Bush campaign speeches, this columnist was not expecting much of a stem-winder. And, truthfully, the CORE address was not a "for the ages" speech. However, considering the "expectations" game that gets played in politics, one could rightly think that it was surprising merely because Bush jumped over a bar that had been set artificially low.

That's part of it, but there's something more substantial in play. Bush seemed to play off of his audience and his host (CORE's Roy Innis) in a way that made him seem very comfortable. Innis and his son, Niger, walked the governor around the ballroom, visiting most tables. At each stop, Bush made the effort to shake the hands of everyone at the table. By the time the group got back to the head table, he had made his initial connection with people in the room.

The dinner's theme was the "Harmony Awards," and the special honorees were members of both sides of the Thomas Jefferson family. These two facts should not be overlooked in explaining why Bush seemed to connect with an audience in a way that he hasn't in previous venues.

Some historians remain skeptical about whether Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings's children. They note that the DNA which is supposed to settle the paternity issue merely proves that a male Jefferson was the father, not necessarily the president. Nonetheless, it is fascinating to see how a story has evolved from centuries-long accepted truth in the black community to a grudgingly accepted "fact" in contemporary mainstream society. The story has even received the hackneyed TV-movie treatment — which means it must be true, right?

What can't be argued is that, after decades of denying it, the "legitimate" Jefferson descendants now basically accept the story as true. Roy Innis is a conservative black man, yet he introduced dais-sharers Lucian Truscott (from the "legitimate" Martha Jefferson side of the family), Shay Banks-Young, Julia Jefferson Westerinen and Robert Golden (all sharing Hemings ancestry) as equal descendants of Thomas Jefferson. George W. Bush referenced them and said that their presence was the embodiment of what harmony was all about. He didn't make explicit the tie between "harmony" and his own pledge to be a "uniter, not a divider." It was unnecessary.

Rich Lowry has keyed in on the unveiling of Bush's "ownership is freedom" line. It is truly a simple, yet profound, phrase. But when one considers the setting it was delivered in, the impact becomes all the more overwhelming.

Bush was standing on a dais that included the descendants (at the very least) of a slave once owned by Thomas Jefferson. He was speaking in a room with many African-Americans who could likely trace their lineage back to slave times. This was a room where people had family history that bore witness to a time in America where ownership was not freedom, but its most morally repugnant opposite. In a similar setting, a Bill Clinton would have belabored the point and hammered the history to a point where everyone in the room would have been fatigued or embarrassed.

But in his understated manner, Bush spoke to what could be termed America's invisible history. Something that Bill Clinton recognizes and manages to take advantage of is that African-Americans have a history in this nation like no other group. By recognizing that fact, Clinton helps build a connection with the community. Does he also use it to pander egregiously? Yes. Does he also use that knowledge as a weapon against the melanin-challenged Republican Party? Most definitely. But the recognition factor alone is powerful. It's not, "I feel your pain," but rather "I see you and understand you." Rich correctly notes that "ownership is freedom" can speak to many aspects of Bush's program. But it may resonate far louder with African-Americans precisely because of that community's unique history. Bush raised issues of opportunity that would have greater impact among blacks — and not just in education and home ownership. Bush also proposed a faith-based initiative of assisting and mentoring the estimated 1.3 million children with parents in prison.

Stylistically, Bush addressed the crowd, but kept using body-language to turn slightly toward Innis, often mentioning him by name.

The overall effect made Bush's address seem more like a conversation than a canned speech. For his part, in introducing Bush, Innis cited the previous presidents of whom Bush reminded him: Lincoln, FDR, and the senior Bush. (One could argue that Innis was a little over-the-top with this praise, and it is notable that Ronald Reagan was not part of this formulation. I'm sure no disrespect was meant to the Gipper.) It is interesting to see what those three presidents represent: Lincoln is a foundation stone for both the Republican Party and blacks; Roosevelt was the Democrat who used a broad economic program coming out of tough times to start peeling blacks away from the GOP; Bush Sr. is seen, in the hindsight of the Clinton years, as greater and even more decent than he was when he left office. Is it possible that this combination — Bush 2.0, as it were — might actually start an African-American odyssey back toward the Republican Party?

It is too soon to say, but the George W. Bush on display Monday night certainly made a strong case. This is a man who, in general, looks like he's quite ready for prime time.