Big trouble in a little tent?

Monday, August 18, 1997

REPUBLICANS:

Seemingly divisive debates healthy outcome of diverse partyBy
MacLane Key

Political junkies have given much attention in recent weeks to a
possible division within Republican ranks. This speculation was
fueled by an attempt to remove House Speaker Newt Gingrich from his
position and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse
Helms’ refusal to hold hearings to confirm former Gov. William Weld
as Ambassador to Mexico.

However, these incidents are not signals of an imminent collapse
of the Republican big tent. Instead, they are unhealthy-appearing
manifestations of a healthy debate taking place in the Republican
Party over the future of the party and the country.

Because the Republican Party has such broad appeal with the
American voters, not everyone in the party always agrees on what we
should be doing and how. Many of the more conservative members of
the House were unhappy with Speaker Newt’s inability to counter
Clinton’s spin machine during the last two years. They thought the
party needed to more aggressively push the conservative agenda they
campaigned on while explaining their actions to the American
public, thus nullifying Clinton’s misinformation campaigns. To that
end, they wanted to replace Newt with someone more charismatic and
conservative.

Other liberal Republicans are using the Weld nomination as a way
to further their own interests. While they want the party to remain
conservative on fiscal issues, they favor liberal views on social
issues like drug legalization and abortion-on-demand.

Helms thinks Weld’s liberal stance on drug use disqualifies him
from becoming the ambassador to the country through which most of
America’s cocaine passes through. However, while Helms has
indicated a willingness to hold hearings for Weld’s ambassadorship
to any non-drug related country, Weld stated that this is not about
drugs or Mexico but about the future of the GOP.

The more liberal Republicans rallying to Weld’s cause are hoping
to gain enough influence to capture the party’s presidential
nomination. These Republicans may be in for a bit of a shock. Given
Weld’s history of quitting jobs in his quest for power (the most
recent example being his resignation as governor of Massachusetts
with more than a year left in his term to pursue this nomination),
it is widely rumored that this may be a Clinton-organized publicity
stunt in order to prepare Weld to switch parties and run as Gore’s
VP pick in 2000.

In addition to these public battles, many private debates are
raging over the future of the GOP and our nation. Some in the party
think we should move slowly in passing legislation to undo the
damage caused by 40 years of domination by liberal Democrats. They
believe that quick change may frighten voters and result in the
Democrats again controlling both Congress and the presidency.
Others think we must act quickly to improve Americans’ lives by
removing the burden of an intrusive government so that voters will
see results quickly and not lose patience with the GOP.

In addition to issues of expediency, Republicans are debating
their priorities. Many think balancing the budget by reducing
spending and cutting taxes should be our first priority. They argue
this will help stimulate the economy to the point that we would
once again enjoy the growth and prosperity experienced after
Reagan’s tax cuts, when economic growth was a full point higher,
millions of high-paying jobs were created, and everyone who worked
enjoyed prosperity.

Others think the GOP should focus on social issues. They think
most voters care more about crime, education and the deterioration
of moral standards than about whether the top marginal tax rate is
38 percent or 34 percent. They think we should pass laws to make
sure criminals are caught, punished and kept away from law-abiding
citizens so that our children won’t be killed in the streets and
inner-city neighborhoods will have a chance to once again develop
economically.

Still others think we should pass new environmental protection
laws to change the way we try to keep our air, water and land
clean. They think that the only way to simultaneously protect the
environment and the rights of individuals is to strengthen private
property rights.

This was exemplified in Kenya where the African elephant went
from being nearly non-existent to omnipresent. In Kenya,
individuals owned the elephants on their land, and could do what
they liked with their property. Since they were interested in
keeping the elephants alive, they protected their habitat. In doing
so, they also protected the habitat of many other creatures, and
even expanded the herds so they would have a steady supply of ivory
to sell.

Some Republicans think that such occurrences demonstrate the
effectiveness of free-market environmental protection on cutting
down pollution and increasing wildlife populations. They hope to
persuade many environmentalists to defect from the socialists who
control the mainstream environmental movement today, thus
strengthening the GOP.

The American people overwhelmingly put Republicans in control of
Congress in two consecutive elections. The Republican Party is
clearly where the debate over the country’s future is taking place.
Even Clinton had to pretend he was a moderate Republican in order
to boost his dismal ’94 approval poll up to its current high
level.

At times the debate may look ugly or even silly, but that’s to
be expected. In a party with such broad appeal, it’s impossible for
everyone to be completely satisfied all the time, and dialogue
keeps the party from stagnating.

We may debate among ourselves now, but when elections roll
around, we will unite together to protect the American public from
liberal Democrats that currently dominate both the Congress and the
White House. Memories of Clinton’s retroactive tax increases,
mounds of new strangling regulations, and an attempt to turn the
best health-care system in the world into the old Soviet system are
enough to make all Republicans put their minor differences aside
for the good of the American people.