If the president is reconsidering affirmative action simply to assuage a handful of traumatized Caucasians, he should forget about it. If, in fact, he doesn’t believe that giving preference by group or pigment is profoundly unAmerican-bad for blacks as well as whites-he should leave well enough alone. But he won’t. And the most difficult question of his political career remains: how can he formulate a new policy that will unite rather than divide, that will seem plausible across racial lines?

It’s not impossible. There are precedents, Indeed, the American institution most respected by white males, angry and otherwise, is also the institution that has most successfully practiced affirmative action: the United States military. The president knows this, sort of-although he conveniently misrepresented military affirmative action policy in his California speech (there is no requirement that a promotion pool “reflect the racial and gender makeup of the rank just below” -the military succeeds because it’s a lot more subtle than the Clinton cabinet selection process). The president might do well to take a closer look at what the military does do right before he makes his next move.

And what the military has done best is adhere to the original spirit of affirmative action-inclusion, not preferences. Quality is never sacrificed for diversity. If you don’t do well on the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT); if you haven’t graduated high school; if you don’t have a clean record -you don’t get in. Only half the 343,176 who took the AFQT in 1994 made it; 70 percent of new recruits scored in the 50th percentile or higher. “Their performance can mean the difference between fife and death, so we can’t take chances,” says Edwin Dorn, under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness. The implicit contract with enlistees is simple: if you meet our standards and play by our rules, we will work overtime to guarantee that your ability to advance is solely determined by merit. This works because the military is a closed society with its own peculiar reality: rank is more important than race. Rank is more important than anything. “When I showed up for basic training, there were two drill sergeants -one black and one white,” says William Galston, one of the few Clinton White House aides who served in the military. “But their race was irrelevant. I was equally terrified of both.”

At the same time, the military has taken “affirmative” actions to make sure that discrimination isn’t tolerated -and that more blacks are included in its authority structure. Basic training includes racial sensitivity courses. An officer cited for the merest sort of race-insensitive behavior–a stray epithet-will not be promoted. There’s also an effort to seek out minority recruits with potential and prepare them for leadership. There are compensatory education programs. Some are racially targeted (ROTC programs at historically black colleges, for example); most are open to all. Finally, promotion board results are reviewed to be sure minorities who seek to rise-but only those who seek to rise, as opposed to the overall racial percentages posited by the president-are succeeding at the same rate as others. (That blacks have been rising from captain to major at a slightly slower rate than others is proof of the system’s integrity.) But most of these programs are peripheral: the real affirmative action takes place in basic training, with equal-opportunity harassment from drill instructors.

Obviously, the president can’t propose that every American teenager get yelled at by Louis Gossett Jr. for eight weeks (though it might do wonders for race relations). But Clinton should consider delivering his big affirmative-action speech in a poor black neighborhood and using the opportunity to extol the military. He might even offer a military-style deal: if you work hard and play by the rules, we’ll work overtime to give you a better shot. It won’t be an easy sale; most blacks are justifiably skeptical about white intentions. But the president can’t end racial preference programs (as he should) without proposing an alternative-and an aggressive program of inclusion, targeting poor teens, may be the most plausible. At the very least, Clinton could call for an expansion of national service -perhaps even a special, military-style service corps, supervised by underemployed drill sergeants to include some of the 170,000 who try to enlist each year but don’t make the cut. (They might also be given vouchers for tutorial programs to help prepare for the AFQT, college boards or vocational school-the military has several curricula that Yield dramatic results.)

You are laughing. More money for education? For national service? Newt’ll love that. Well, he should. Republicans have demagogued the race issue for 30 years now. They have a responsibility to prove their sudden “colorblindness” isn’t as transparent as it seems. Gingrich chatters about opportunity; he rhapsodizes over the military. Here’s a chance to combine the two – and Bill Clinton should challenge the speaker to prove his devotion to equal opportunity consists of more than just hot air.