New Wilson Is the Old Wilson

By GEORGE SKELTON

Jan. 15, 1996 12 AM PT

SACRAMENTO — So what are we to conclude from Gov. Pete Wilson’s ignoring of his two red meat issues--illegal immigration and racial preferences--in the State of the State address? Not one word among 3,200.

What happened to “fairness--for those who work hard, play by the rules . . .”? The governor repeatedly attacked illegal immigration (though not immigrants, as some critics claim) in winning reelection two years ago. Last year, in a botched run for the White House, he led a steady bombardment against affirmative action.

This year, in his premier tone-setting speech, there was conspicuous silence.

Is Wilson backing off? Intimidated by charges of demagoguery and racism? Returning to his centrist roots? Setting a new tone of moderation and conciliation?

Trying to become warm and fuzzy?

“Absolutely not,” insists Leslie Goodman, his communications director. “There’s a bit of wishful thinking going on by people who make those observations. They get scared to death when he puts his focus on these issues because he’s so successful. . . .

“The notion that he left them out to try to appease somebody is absurd on its face.”

In last Monday’s televised address to the Legislature, Goodman says, Wilson wanted to focus on issues the lawmakers can influence--education, teen pregnancies, welfare, gang violence, taxes. By contrast, immigration primarily is an issue for Washington and the courts; affirmative action will be fought out in courtrooms and on the ballot.

Still, says one anonymous Republican activist and occasional Wilson insider: “My view is the governor wisely moved because he realizes these are divisive issues that win elections but don’t build records.”

And a Wilson strategist says he expects the governor to cool the rhetoric for a while on these sensitive subjects. He has a larger agenda to sell.

It’s not like Wilson is wimping out. While he’s cooling his rhetoric, the governor behind the scenes is raising money for the ballot initiative that would ban racial and gender preferences in public hiring, contracting and student admissions.

He has been on the phone soliciting donations and soon a fund-raising letter signed by the governor will be mailed to 200,000 Republicans. “We must do everything we can to combat the discrimination that exists in America,” his letter says, “and that includes ending the government-sanctioned discrimination of . . . racial preferences.”

Wilson’s quiet help for the initiative could be pivotal. Sponsors need to collect 1 million signatures by Feb. 21 to assure a spot on the November ballot. So far, they have gathered less than half that number. “It’s going right down to the wire,” says Arnold Steinberg, the initiative’s chief strategist.

Meanwhile, Wilson is pressing a court suit to gut state affirmative action programs.

On immigration, he recently threatened to personally drop some shackled, undocumented inmate at the door of a federal prison unless Washington ponies up with more money to reimburse California for incarcerating criminals who have entered the country illegally. That doesn’t sound like somebody who’s moderating his views.

“It’s very cynical to say Pete Wilson only cares about this stuff during an election campaign,” Goodman says.

But that clearly has become a big piece of the Wilson image. Many believe he cynically exploits polarizing issues to arouse the voters’ basest instincts.

It never used to be that way, notes Larry Thomas, a decades-long advisor who now is an Irvine Co. executive. It wasn’t until his 1994 reelection campaign, Thomas says, “that people started saying he had his finger to the wind.”

“It’s unfortunate,” the governor told me recently, “that some of the real issues are divisive. The sad thing is it’s inescapable because failing to deal with them is even more divisive. Racial preferences are engendering resentment.”

In dissecting Wilson’s State of the State address, let’s be real. He doesn’t need to keep reminding Californians of his views on illegal immigration and affirmative action. He owns those issues.

Something else this unpopular governor does not need right now is to rile up his detractors. Rather, he needs to promote causes that appeal all across the ideological and socioeconomic spectra--safe things like fighting teen pregnancy and gang violence, and improving public schools.

So was the governor’s avoidance of the divisive issues calculated? You bet. Is he backing off? A bit. What are we to make of this? Very little.