Opposing Jesse doesn't make you a racist

I recently wondered about those who so casually ignore whatJesse Jackson is saying when he supports a policy that would cause somuch "economic violence" to working people and the unemployed.

The oil import tax, which Mr. Jackson says he can support andwhich his chief opponent, Michael Dukakis, opposes, would costconsumers billions of dollars and drive thousands of industrial jobsfrom the United States, especially from states like Illinois.

Mr. Jackson's support of a policy so destructive of theaspirations of his own constituents suggests that he doesn'tunderstand economic policy. For that and other reasons -particularly his lack of significant elective or appointivegovernment experience - is why I don't support his candidacy.

But I'm not here today to discuss those reasons. I'm here totalk about whether anyone has a right to oppose Mr. Jackson.

You'd get the idea that no one does if you listen to the likesof Lu Palmer, a black activist who for years has put food on histable by fanning racial tensions. Mr. Palmer a few weeks ago warnedthat "they" better not "mess with Jesse" by denying him theDemocratic nomination if he goes to the convention with a delegatelead. Then Mr. Palmer suggested that anyone who opposes Mr.Jackson's nomination under those circumstances is a racist.

It is a moving and hopeful thing that Mr. Jackson's candidacy haslifted the spirits and racial pride of many blacks. But it is afrightening thing to hear Mr. Palmer's view.

It smears anyone who in good conscience opposes Mr. Jackson andhis policies. It is a smear worthy of red-baiter Joe McCarthy, whocalled people who opposed him communists, their sympathizers or theirdupes. It degrades Mr. Jackson's campaign and needs to be repudiatedby the candidate.

Mr. Palmer smears those who think that the first priority is toget someone, anyone, elected who would best deal with the issues ofpeace and poverty from a liberal perspective. Mr. Palmer's positionleaves no room for people who in good conscience believe, correctlyor incorrectly, that Mr. Jackson cannot be elected, and that tonominate Mr. Jackson is to ensure that a Reaganite will occupy theWhite House for four, possibly eight, years.

I can understand the argument that lifting the aspirationsof a long-suffering minority is so important that a black presidentmust be elected at all costs, even at the risk of winding up with anunsympathetic president who would block programs important tominorities and the poor for another four or eight years. But itstrains logic to be called a racist for thinking differently. Howcan you logically be accused of conspiring against black aspirationswhen you argue that the first priority is to elect a president whowould work for black aspirations?

By requiring that I or anyone else fall in line behind Mr.Jackson under the threat of being charged with racism, people likeMr. Palmer would undo what I had been taught by my family, my churchand my school: You don't judge people by the color of their skin.You judge them by the quality of what is in their minds and hearts.

Well, I suspect that explanation won't satisfy anyone assingle-minded as Mr. Palmer. And to that, all I can say is that I'mglad that Mr. Palmer wasn't born a white Southerner. Because it wasthe same kind of people, so secure in their bigotry, who insistedthat the only place blacks belonged was in the back seats of theMontgomery buses.

Dennis Byrne, whose column appears on Wednesdays, is a member ofthe Chicago Sun-Times editorial board.