THIS IS A TEST

Many of Texas Gov. George W. Bush Jr.'s defenders argue that Democratic
enemies, GOP rivals and a press corps hell-bent on the "politics of
destruction" are fueling the recent controversy over questions of past
illegal drug use. That is only partly true. The person most responsible for
the fracas is Gov. Bush himself, who is learning a harsh lesson about
presidential campaign politics: Non-answers only give way to larger, more
troubling questions.

By first stonewalling and then giving limited, confusing replies to
questions, the Republican front-runner has given the public an incomplete
record on this issue. The cloud over his campaign will not dissipate until
he sets the record straight. One thing voters do not like is a politician
who evades tough questions.

The sensible question most average American voters ask is this: If he
didn't do it, then what does he have to hide? Refusing to directly answer
the question only feeds a reasonable suspicion that he is hiding something
far worse than experimentation or occasional social use. Without firm,
convincing answers, voters will inevitably ask: Was he addicted to cocaine?
Did he require extensive treatment to kick the habit?

Bush argues that what he did in his youth is not relevant to what he has
accomplished as an adult. That's reasonable enough, but in a series of
statements last week, Gov. Bush created more confusion than clarity. He
told the Dallas Morning News that he had not used illegal drugs in the past
seven years -- the time frame used in normal FBI background checks of
certain federal appointees.

But in a news conference the following day, Bush said he would have been
able to pass the more stringent clearance rules imposed by his father when
he became president in 1989. Under that standard, the FBI asked employees
whether they had used drugs in the past 15 years. That means Bush has been
drug-free since 1974, when he was 28 and a graduate student at Harvard
University. He has refused to say whether he took drugs before 1974.

An easy way to put an end to this tortuous process is to simply fess up or
flatly deny it. If Gov. Bush does admit to taking drugs, he would most
likely find a tolerant electorate, filled with millions of aging baby
boomers who once experimented with illegal drugs in their youth. Telling
the truth should not disqualify him from higher office. In fact, candor
could actually turn this incident into a positive windfall for his
sputtering campaign. He would likely encounter more sympathy than disgust.

The public should have a complete accounting on this issue, for several
reasons. As governor, for example, Bush has taken a hard line on drugs,
slashing prison drug-treatment programs and repealing a law providing
automatic probation for those possessing small amounts of hard drugs. Is he
a hypocrite, a child of power and privilege who had the connections to
avoid the harsh punishments that he now espouses? Or is he just a mature
politician whose policy is forged from his own experience? Voters should be
able to judge for themselves.

Millions of people are now screened for illegal drug use before they are
hired for a job. Millions take those tests without fear, although many
consider the process an indignity.

Gov. Bush is now being tested. He should answer the questions.