Oct/Nov/Dec 2000
Politics is a hell of a game. It requires constant maneuvering and vying for position, looking for that perfect coalition of voters to win the election.
The Republican Party claims to be stepping out in a new direction. It has proclaimed itself a big tent party. Anyone and everyone can be a Republican. All are welcomed.
Are they serious?
I say yes, because they have no choice.
It is hard to believe that the party that spawned David Duke would make overtures to African Americans. It is even more difficult to imagine Jesse Helms or Trent Lott hanging out with RuPaul. Is the tent that big? Maybe not, but the Republicans recognize that to win another national election, they need more people. National parties exist to win national elections and the Republicans have not done so in eight years, so its time to unzip the flaps.
This change of attitude is critical to the survival of the Republican Party. Much has changed since 1992 when the United States found itself in an economic down turn and as the undisputed World Super Power. The end of the Cold War, and the U.S. projection of power demonstrated in Dessert Shield/Storm had made it clear that the United States of America will defeat its enemies in war. The collective fear of the Soviet Union was gone. Americans were ready to turn inward. The Republicans were not fully aware of the people's altered direction.
This turning tide was tailored for Democrats. Having not worn the mantle of the warrior party, the Democrats were already talking about domestic issues. “Social programs, education, we all can live together, we do not ask to see your green card or baptism pictures nor do we care what flavor you like your sex.” Total inclusion was and is the Democrat’s stick.
The Republicans had a different set of interests. Most Republicans shared the following views: strong military, limited government/low taxes and strong religious belief. These basic values, Reaganomics, and the perceived Soviet threat unified the party. After winning the Cold War, the triumphant Reaganless Republicans drifted into three camps: the Moral-Conservatives, the Fiscal-Conservatives, and the Xenophobic-Conservatives. The principles of strong military, limited government, and religion still applied, but factional issues began to take precedent. The Moral-Conservatives turned up their promotion of anti-abortion legislation, expansion of Christianity in public life, and blocking Gay and Lesbian attempts at equality under the law. The Fiscal Conservatives wanted a balanced budget, responsible government spending and tax cuts. The Xenophobic-Conservatives, who included radical militia organizations, White supremist and other people who to one degree or another are of like mind, feared all that was not Christian white America and wanted things they saw as threats to Protestant white culture halted or controlled.
Thus sprung forth the two men who most contributed to President Bush’s defeat in 1992: Patrick Buchanan and Ross Perot. Buchanan exploited the Republican rifts with xenophobic rhetoric about cultural wars and moral sermons against the sins of abortion and homosexuality. His appeal was strong enough to gain 22.6 percent of the vote in the Republican primaries. The Fiscal–Conservatives in coalition with Moral Conservative leadership defeated Buchanan. They realized that Buchananism showed the intolerant xenophobic side of the party and could not win a national election. But the party still needed his voters, so Buchanan was allowed to address the 1992 Republican Convention in an attempt to stave off a party revolt by his followers. Buchanan’s speech, as expected, was confrontational and judgmental, but was successful in keeping his constituents in the party.
Buchanan’s antics alone did not lose the election for the Republicans. The country may have re-elected President Bush Xenophobes and all. Reagan Democrats voted Republican for three presidential elections. They were the same democrats who where happy with Reagan’s foreign policy and economic agenda, but helped keep the congress either split or controlled by Democrats, effectively blocking any radical xenophobic and moralist legislation from seeing Reagan’s desk. Why not again? Well this election had a new issue and a new player. Ross Perot provided an alternative vote for Democrats, Republicans and anyone else who demanded debt control. His party (The Reform Party) won 19 percent of the popular vote. Democrat candidate Clinton won 43 percent and Republican President George Bush won 37.4 percent.
President Clinton won the election but he did not have a majority vote. More people voted for someone else than for the new president. Most of the votes for Perot were Republican. As a result, by 1996 both parties had taken up the balanced budget crusade because they realized they needed Perot’s votes to win the White House.
The Republican 1996 campaign year was a near mirror version of 1992. Buchanan once again attempted to set the course of the party. He once again failed to change the party’s direction while succeeding in vividly revealing the xenophobic control tendencies of the party. Once again the Republicans lost to President Clinton who won with less than half of the popular vote with 49 percent. The Republican candidate Senator Bob Dole had 41 percent and, once again, most of Ross Perot’s votes came from Republicans. But he posted less than half his previous showing, going from 19% to 8%. Fiscal-Conservative Republicans and some conservative Democrats voted Republican since both parties had adopted the balanced budget position.
The year 2000 is a critical national election for Republicans as windows of opportunity are slowly closing. The Right’s moral agenda may find itself on hold if a Republican president is not elected soon. Republicans have had controlled the House and the Senate since the Newt Gingrich engineered thrashing of the Democrats in 1994. This was the first time the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate since 1954. Now the Republican Moral-Conservatives need a president that will at a minimum sign into law a bill against so-called partial birth abortions and appoint judges that in their lingo are “pro-life” and hopefully “pro-religion,” to the Supreme Court. Who knows how long the Republicans can control congress? A split or democrat dominated congress would never produce “pro-life” bills for the president to see let alone sign. Timing causes similar problems in naming Supreme Court Justices. A Republican must be in the White House to name a judge. How much longer will Chief Justice Rehnquist at 80 years and Associate Stevens at 76 years be on the court? This next president may have the opportunity to name their replacements. If not in this term, then the next president will undoubtedly appoint a justice.
These are important issues for the Moral-Conservatives, but the Fiscal-Conservatives have a different agenda. The Fiscal Conservatives are pro-business. Their agenda is wealth creation in a laissez faire market system. Fiscal-Conservatives’ moral positions span the spectrum of leftwing to rightwing, but those issues are not their primary concern. Having made their importance felt by voting for Ross Perot, Fiscal Conservatives have returned to lead the Republican Party. Their return has created a shift in the base of the party. Although the Moral Conservatives are still important and needed by the party to win elections, they have lost a bit of their clout. Their paranoid driven alliance with the Xenophobes kept non-white Moral Conservative Democrats from the party. The Fiscal-Conservative Republican have led the charge to severe the party affiliation with the Xenophobes. The moralist had two chances to win the White House based on moral and xenophobic issues. This alliance did not serve the party well. So the Xenophobic dark-side of the party is slowly being driven out. It is no coincidence that Pat Buchanan is no longer a member of the Republican Party. He represented a liability for the moral and fiscal agenda of the party. Patrick scared voters, so it was time for him to go.
It is important to note that Xenophobic-Conservatives and Moral-Conservatives are not necessarily the same constituency. There is most definitely a strong relationship between the Xenophobes and the moralists. Bob Jones University, Christian Identity churches and the religious rhetoric espoused by both radical militia and Klan organizations, illustrate this relationship. But most moralists are not radical racists and their defining agenda is not race-based. It is focused on abortion, homosexuality, and expansion of religion and their moral values in public life. The xenophobes of the party are going elsewhere as they have begun to distrust all organizations of government, including the Republican Party. A wave of government distrust swept the nation in the mid-nineties. This distrust combined with NAFTA, the federal law enforcement actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco have alienated many Xenophobes. The moralists need a candidate that can deliver on signing anti-abortion legislation and appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court. They know Buchanan is unelectable and cannot help them. So when Buchanan left the party no one went with him. The Xenophobes who left the party are either busy preparing for future confrontations or may vote for Buchanan. But this small number should not hurt the Republicans unless the race is plus or minus 3 points.
So how does this all add up? Where is the Republican Party headed? There is a power shift-taking place in the party as well as slight ideological changes. These changes are born from necessity, as are all political changes. The Fiscal-Conservatives seek to move the party closer to the center on moral issues and eradicate as much as is possible in a racist, homophobic, sexist society, the xenophobia that once ran rampant in the party. They have placated the moralists by putting the usual anti-abortion/homosexual planks in the party platform. The moralists have agreed to step out of the limelight and let the Fiscal-Conservatives take the lead in the public eye. But they see the platform as emphatically stating the party’s position and they expect Bush to live up to it, especially the abortion plank. But when Larry King asked Fiscal-Conservative General Colin Powell about the platform, Powell claimed he had not even read the document and felt that it is not important. This is a signal to voters that there are strong elements in the party who intend to move it in a different direction and some of the old rhetoric present is not to be taken seriously. These different opinions about the party platform illustrate the current struggle in the party. The moralists still control much of the party and continue to push their agenda as the party’s focus. The Fiscal-Conservatives would rather tone down morality rhetoric and emphasize an economic agenda of wealth creation. Both the moralists and the Fiscal Conservatives want to win the presidency. The reality of the diverse faces of America has made the party realize that it cannot win with radical, racist policies. So most (not all) of the Xenophobes are gone or are toning down their rhetoric. Both the Fiscal and Moral Conservatives are calling out to non-Whites to join the party (they accept that homosexuals are members) because they want to win. Is it heartfelt? As a party yes, as individuals, no.
Every presidential election is a critical moment in American history. The passing of such great power and responsibility from one person to another is momentous. But more important than who wins this election is the coalitions aspired to in the effort to win. The Republicans hope to change the mix of American politics. They seek to join white-skinned Moral-Conservatives with non-white skinned Moral-Conservatives and white-skinned Fiscal-Conservatives with non-white skinned Fiscal-Conservatives. The party will be controlled by whoever has the most votes. A win for Bush will ignite the transition. A lose will only make the party work harder.
Politics is a hell of a game.
