LEARNING TO PLAY HARDBALL; USE OF RACE CARD IN ALARCON-KATZ CONTEST ILLUSTRATES HOW DEMOCRATS ARE BECOMING FAMILIAR WITH TURNOUT TACTICS.

Byline: Matthew N. Klink

WITH righteous indignation, the Democratic Party thinks of itself as being on the right side of any race issue in political campaigns. This, in part, is why the newspapers have been filled with shock and dismay over the conduct of Richard Alarcon and Richard Katz in their campaigns for the California Senate.

Both men's actions are so stunning because these tactics are not usually attributable to two Democratic candidates.

The Democrats claim to be the party that supports affirmative action, as evidenced by President Clinton's feeble call last year to ``mend it, not end it.'' Historically, when a Democratic candidate discussed race in a political context, it was usually an attempt to contrast his or her views against those of a conservative opponent, typically by alleging that the Republican was or is a racist. That's why Alarcon's mailer alleging that Katz was anti-Latino came as such a surprise. It caught Katz off guard, and he couldn't quickly respond.

In California's political world, at least according to my many Democratic friends, it's a well-known but somewhat limited belief that only the Republican Party uses racially charged issues to bolster turnout. To substantiate these facts, they quickly list GOP support for popular and successful ballot initiatives such as Proposition 187, which denied benefits to illegal immigrants; Proposition 209, which ended affirmative action in state jobs and schools; and most recently Proposition 227, which fundamentally altered bilingual education.

This myth has been debunked by Alarcon's and Katz's recent actions. The recent Alarcon-Katz state Senate race proves that Democrats are not immune from such racially tinged campaign tactics.

In fact, this campaign's race-baiting highlights a trend that will not only increase in contested Democratic primaries, but also will swell given the greater number of minorities challenging white candidates in future political campaigns. When and where possible, more Democratic candidates will use the race card against their fellow Democratic opponents in an attempt to swing close primary elections.

This type of hardball campaigning will continue for one primary reason - it works. It is especially effective when the other side is unprepared or unable to quickly counter. Aggressive actions such as these motivate people - of all races and ethnicities - to turn out on Election Day, not so much to vote for a candidate but to vote against that candidate's opponent. As Katz and Alarcon were well aware, voter turnout in the 20th Senate District, particularly for ethnic groups, has historically been a problem.

The race card works well in close races because campaigns are gigantic efforts to segment voters so that your candidate receives the number of votes necessary to win - in this case, Alarcon received 29 more votes than Katz. Rarely is it that the candidate with the best ideas but no turnout strategy wins. Candidates who can muster scarce resources - time, people and money - to turn out more of their supporters win elections.

And, like it or not, winning is key in political campaigns. No points exist for second place, and no one remembers the candidate who lost honorably or fought the good fight. People only remember winners.

Most voters have incredibly short memories about the actions that occur during a political campaign, and politicians aren't held accountable for their actions unless their campaign tactics are so egregious that they violate the law.

Most voters, numbed by the often-reported abuses of politicians, believe that hardball politicking, such as the use of racially charged issues, is part of the rough-and-tumble world of politics. And candidates realize that while they may have the most altruistic visions about improving society, unless he or she wins an election, good ideas simply remain good ideas. To make thoughts into concrete policy necessitates success at the ballot box.

What's so difficult for Democrats to stomach on the heels of the Alarcon-Katz contest is that by using race in a Democratic primary, the issue has now come full circle. Democrats have used racially charged campaigns against Republican candidates in an election's closing days for quite some time - Republicans expect it and have developed tactics to weather this storm. Heaven forbid that a Democrat use race against another Democrat.

But Katz and Alarcon knew full well that the winner of the Democratic nomination in June easily wins the general election in November. The temptation to play the race card was just too great to be ignored.

Consequently, Democratic campaigns must evolve - or devolve, depending upon one's perspective - and accept the fact that hardball campaigning and the use of the race card are political facts of life. Democrats, just like Republicans, must become used to responding to such attacks, whether warranted or unwarranted. To be clear, this does not mean it's acceptable for a candidate to break the law, but it does mean that campaigns need to prepare for all contingencies and be able to respond when necessary.

The postelection spin on the Alarcon-Katz campaign in the weeks after the election reeks of ivory-tower politics, written by people who have never worked on campaigns. True, more important issues need to be discussed, and race-baiting does nothing to further good public policy.

However, if newspapers, radio and television stations really cared about good public policy, they would stop covering campaigns as horse races and allow candidates more time and column inches to get their campaign messages and public policy positions across.

Until this changes, candidates must look for creative ways to turn out voters. Alarcon found the quickest and most effective way to mobilize the votes he needed to achieve victory. Katz didn't, and he lost. End of story.

CAPTION(S):

2 Photos

Photo: (1--Color) RICHARD ALARCON

(2--Color) RICHARD KATZ