IN a speech to Congress on February 9, President George Bush promised to "work to knock down the barriers left by past discrimination and to build a more tolerant society that will stop such barriers from ever being built again."

Unfortunately, 1989 is quickly becoming known as the year that racial politics took over--in Chicago, in New York and in Boston.

Racial politics is a game where a candidate for office is supported because of his or her racial or ethnic background. Since 1980, Black voters have gone 9-to-1 for the Democratic ticket while the Democrats have failed to pull in over 40 percent of whites.

Race became a major issue in the 1988 presidential campaign, when the Republicans were accused of running a racist or race-baiting campaign.

Maybe its because I'm a Republican, but I really don't believe that the campaign was racist. Many felt that the ads about Willie Horton being released in a Massachusetts prison furlough were playing on some level of racial fears, creating an us-against-them atmosphere.

I saw Willie Horton as a criminal, not as a Black man. It's true that the ad probably conjured up fear in the minds of closet racists. But to term a campaign racist because the criminal was Black is unfair to Bush and the Republican party.

Blacks should have been more concerned about Willie Horton the criminal. He escaped from prison and tortured a married couple, raping the woman several times and repeatedly pistol-whipping her husband. I'm less concerned with his color than with his actions and the program that allowed him to escape. Nonetheless, many people believe that this series of ads led to the increased racial voting around the country.

RACIAL politics has already begun to surface its ugly head on the local level. The February 28 Democratic primary in Chicago was one of the most divisive races ever. Richard Daley, who is white, received over 90 percent of the white vote and a handful of Black support. His Black opponent, Eugene Sawyer, received just the opposite percentages of Daley.

Daley won the election, but yesterday faced Tim Evans, who is also Black, in the general election. Evans is running as an independent, in the "Harold Washington Party." It sure isn't the type of party Harold Washington--a popular Black mayor who worked to unite support from all races--would be involved with.

And now Jesse Jackson, the so-called Democratic leader, is supporting Evans. How is Jackson going to be the Democratic leader when he isn't even supporting the official Democratic nominee?

As New York gears up for its mayoral election, the race is splitting along the same racial lines. Democratic Mayor Ed Koch is seeking his fourth term, but has been criticized by Blacks for being racially insensitive, particularly after he criticized Jackson before the primaries.

It is believed that Koch could easily defeat a Black candidate in a citywide primary, whereas a white liberal with Black support could beat Koch. But Blacks in New York have said over and over again that they want a Black candidate.

If Blacks don't like Koch, isn't it more important that Blacks mobilize and get behind a candidate that can beat Koch? What's the use of having a Black candidate just to have one? Koch will probably still be the mayor, and all that Blacks will show for it is a Black candidate that lost.

Not much of a consolation.

A friend suggested to me that Koch was race-baiting when he said Jews "would be crazy to vote for Jackson." While Koch's statement probably didn't help racial tensions in New York, it was an accurate statement.