HERE'S ONE GOOD reason not to vote for Bill Clinton.

Super Tuesday on CNN, David Duke, when asked if he was disappointed that he did so poorly in Louisiana, replied that he felt pleased that so many of "my issues," as he called them, are being talked about by other candidates.

He cited not just Pat Buchanan, not just George Bush, but also the Arkansas governor. "Clinton's talking about workfare instead of welfare," said the former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard.

Think about that the next time you hear that Bill Clinton is a candidate for all races. He agrees with a former leader of the KKK. He must be a racist!.

There you have it. The perfect syllogism. Duke supports workfare. Duke is a racist Clinton supports workfare. Ergo Clinton is also a racist.

UFAIR? Faulty reasoning? Tarring a perfectly legitimate candidate with the same brush as a blatantly racist hate-monger? yes. Anyone who finds such reasoning sound needs to take a basic logic course. No one with working neurons can say that just because a bigot like duke espouses a position, all who hold that position are racists.

But that's what liberals, and The Crimson in particular, have been able to do to conservatives ever since Duke entered the national scene a few years back. And during Patrick J. Buchanan's presidential campaign, they've been doing it time and time again.

Now don't get me wrong. I disagree with Buchanan's approach to politics and with many of his positions. The idea of throwing up a wall along the Mexican border to keep Latin American immigrants out of the U.S., for example, turns my stomach. I'd much rather have open borders.

But Buchanan and other conservatives have many legitimate gripes.

Take, for example, welfare reform. When ever Duke mentions welfare reform, I hear liberals huffing about "code words." Well, perhaps, in Duke's mouth, "welfare reform" is a code phrase. He sure as hell didn't show too much compassion for Blacks or Hispanics or other poor people before.

But when Buchanan mentions welfare reform, is he talking about the same thing that Duke is? Can liberals deny that a welfare system that raises a single mother's public housing rent from $60 a month to $600 a month if she marries needs reform? I hope not.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack F. Kemp has been talking about welfare refrom for years. Even Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) admits that many welfare recipients are caught in a "cycle of dependency." In Thursday's Boston Globe, Ellen Goodman came out in support of using welfare reforms to discourage women on welfare from having children out of wedlock. Are they too using code words?

OF COURSE, by definition conservatives have fundamental disagreements with liberals. To liberals, the conservative idea that the government should be "tough on crime" seems contradictory when viewed in light of an ideal of personal freedom. But only if the government punishes violence, thereby discouraging it, will society remain peaceful. Only a peaceful society can guarantee its citizens' freedom.

Liberals, however, believe that equality should be he prime concern of the government. Along with equality, total freedom in the sexual realm and complete submission to government meddling in the economic realm (to foster equality) are hallmarks of liberalism.

All that's needed for utopia, liberals imply, is more government spending on education (or Head Start, or housing, or drug counseling, or health care). If equality is at stake, freedom can fall by the wayside.