Right Unites to Push Conservative Platform

Human Events

May 12, 2000

American Conservative Union Will Lead Platform Coalition

The Republican National Convention will not meet for three months, but already the liberals are attacking the Republican platform as too conservative.

A group calling itself the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition fired the first shot in March, pledging an effort to remove the pro-life plank from the GOP platform.

Serendipitously, the Committee for a Conservative Platform held its organizational meeting a few days later. The battle is on for the soul of the Republican Party. Unlike their liberal opponents, the conservatives have had a remarkable record of success. As Human Events documented in its Aug. 16, 1996, edition:

"The final version of the '96 [GOP] platform . . . leaves little doubt that its framers took the conservatives' suggestions quite seriously. Several of the subcommittee members readily volunteered that the conservative platform was indeed used in working out the wording of the planks they submitted. Platform Chairman Heiuy Hyde . . . hailed the Committee for a Conservative Platform's draft as 'a very useful document' and 'a great statement of Republican principles.' Asked if he felt it influence the architects of the platform's wording, Hyde replied: 'I can't speak for everyone, but it influenced me."'

But the liberals never give up. Indeed, conservatives under the leadership of the American Conservative Union have had to mount an operation at every GOP convention since 1972 and, when it made sense, at Democratic conventions too.

Pro-Life, Pro-Gun

Abortion will get the most attention in Philadelphia. The liberal media will undoubtedly present the Republican pro life plank in the worst possible light. Pro-choice GOP officeholders from liberal Eastern states will exploit the issue to get their mugs on TV As usual, they will accuse pro-life conservatives of "dividing the party," when in fact a majority of the Republican rank and file as well as the party nominee, Texas Gov. George W Bush, support the pro-life position.

It is the misnamed "moderates" who use the abortion issue for selfish purposes, no matter what repercussions their actions have on the party's presidential campaign.

The cold truth of it is that the Republican Party's pro-life position has had a net positive effect on the GOP electoral base: A March Newsweek poll asked voters whom they would select if they were forced to pick between just two candidates, one pro-life and the other pro-choice. Forty-eight percent said they would pick the pro-life candidate and the same number was pro-choice. In other words: Among the broad mass of voters, the issue is a wash.

The real voting power of abortion, however; derives not from the broad mass of voters but from the small segment on each side of the issue who say they cast their ballots on that issue alone. Exit polls have shown that roughly 4% of the electorate are single-issue pro-abortion voters, while 8% are single-issue pro-life voters. That means abortion equals a 4% net gain for a clearly pro-life party and a clearly pro-life candidate.

The GOP cannot afford to lose those voters. So the pro-life plank is a political plus.

The text most contentious issue will be gun control. The Democrats and the liberal media are once again demonizing guns. Yet, again, among those who vote on the basis of their position on this issue alone, there is a net positive vote for the Republican pro-gun-rights position.

The National Rife Association has been successful in recent weeks in turning the emphasis from new controls on gun ownership to enforcement of current laws. They have successfully argued that if current laws are not enforced, what sense does it make to pass more laws.

It is highly unlikely the convention will retreat from the party's historic pro-gun-rights position. But there is an outside chance Bush might be tempted to support a call for some new restrictions—because of the hit he took in the liberal media, during the primaries, for supporting Texas' concealed-carry law. But the GOP will remain a pro-gun-rights party after the dust settles in Philadelphia,

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) may try to snake campaign finance reform a major issue at the convention. But Bush will have a competing plan that does not violate the 1st Amendment. Among the delegates, there is not much support for highly regulatory campaign finance laws. So an acceptable compromise will probably be worked out.

Conservatives probably will pressure Bush to move further right on the tax issue. Many believe the Bush tax cut does not reduce rates enough or return sufficient income to taxpayers. Still, the Democrats are certain to push the theme that Bush's tax cut would be a tax cut "for the rich," and they will be able to produce footage of McCain saying so. The fact that a majority of federal income taxes are paid by higher-income earners-in fact, a greater percentage than their percent of income-will not stop the Democrats from making this charge or the liberal media from promoting it. Bush may make some minor changes aimed at pleasing conservative delegates, but in the end is likely to stay pretty close to his current plan.

Since Pat Buchanan apparently will be the Reform Party nominee, the Republicans will want to ensure he is not able to abscond with too many of the GOP's America First-type voters. Bush stand firm on expanding trade and against significant immigration restrictions, so he will not be able compete with Buchanan in those areas. But he can follow the lead of Steve Forbes in making an issue out of the harm done by the International Monetary Fund and/or promise a more restrictive policy on using the U.S. military in foreign conflicts.

Bush is committed to rebuilding the American military but that does not mean he must adopt Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's view that a strong military is not worth having unless you frequently use it in far-flung conflicts. Taking either of these two positions will allow Bush to compete for the Buchanan vote.

The elderly will be an especially difficult constituency for the Republicans. Social Security and Medicare face insolvency cases in the coming decades and the elderly are suspicious of any changes to the system, especially if they are promoted by the GOP. Bush actually has some innovative ideas on seniors’ issues, particularly Social Security. Demagogues in the other party, however, are exploiting fears of change, while ignoring the solvency problems-even wanting to add new prescription drug and spousal benefits.

On the other side of the issue, younger voters face the prospect of paying more into the system than they can ever expect to get out of it-making them a prime constituency for the plan Bush intends to promote allowing personal investment of some Social Security taxes.

It is possible to bridge the gaps. For example, a restructuring of Medicare could add a drug benefit without adding costs by vouchering the benefit payments and a constitutional amendment that guarantees benefits to those currently retired and nearing retirement could allay some doubts. But it will be tricky politically. [See Steve Moore's cover story.]

On some issues, Bush is trying to move to the center for votes. He already has abandoned the GOP's platform plank that calls for abolishing the Department of Education and he wants a major federal role in setting national educational standards. These plans are certain to court conservative opposition in Philadelphia. Still, Bush continues to emphasize local control of schools and, in general, uses the conservative lexicon when talking about education issues.

Activists working to preserve a conservative Republican platform have their work cut out for them. Where they are allied with Mr. Bush, it will be no contest. But where they disagree with Bush, there will be engagement, hopefully civilized and positive.

Again in this election cycle, the Republican platform will be more important for the conservative movement than it is for the GOP nominee himself. In 1996, Bob Dole publicly declared that he did not even read the platform.

But for those interested in ideas, and in keeping the Republican Party unambiguously the conservative party in American politics, the platform is critical. History has demonstrated that what a party's platform says tends over the long term to be translated into national policy.

In the short term, for prudential reasons, it might be necessary to compromise in the legislative arena. Even President Ronald Reagan had to do so. But Reagan always held to the underlying conservative principle as he was forced to bend to political realities.

A platform needs to state the party's fundamental principles even if they cannot always be followed.

That is why conservatives-for the eighth convention in a row-have created a committee to write a principled platform and to lobby the convention delegates in Philadelphia (and maybe in Los Angeles, too) for the parties to adopt. A dose of the right medicine will be good for the parties and good for the USA.

Donald Devine is a vice chairman of the American Conservative Union.