What’s Left After The Moderates Are Done?

May 12, 2002

by Christopher G. Adamo

During the past few weeks, the Republican National Committee has conjured up a novel strategy from which they hope to reap great successes in this fall’s elections. Essentially, the plan is to throw support behind candidates who are more "moderate" (read: liberal) in lieu of traditional conservatives. Under the inept “leadership” of liberal Republican National Committee Chairman Marc Racicot, the RNC is engaged in an apparently relentless effort to prove itself worthy of its nickname "The Stupid Party."

Such a ploy, if followed through to its conclusion, can only result in a “lose/lose” situation for Republicans. Not only does it undermine the candidacies of true conservatives by marginalizing them in comparison to what the Party defines as its “center,” it also guarantees that, no matter what the numerical breakdown of the post-November Congress, a liberal agenda will be implemented. Who in their right mind can anticipate anything but failure and disaster if Republican ranks in the House and Senate swell with greater numbers of Republicans the likes of Jim Jeffords and John McCain?

Actually, this mindset is nothing new, and in fact has been at the epicenter of ongoing contention within the party for years. Prior to the monumental successes of Ronald Reagan, the party leadership was dominated by a moral ambiguity which was virtually assured to appeal to few outside its own circles. Reagan however, brought moral clarity to the party, along with the persuasive ability and resolve to define the agenda. Little of that is remembered by the party insiders anymore. What they do remember is a single facet of his leadership philosophy which, when taken totally out of context, fits their present agenda.

Ronald Reagan was the creator of the concept known as “The Big Tent.” By this he meant that, as a leader, the strength of his ideas was so profound that others would be inspired to lay aside their own differences with him and follow. Thus, people of varying viewpoints could nonetheless agree on most of what he advanced, and give their support to his efforts. In recent years however, under the pretext of “The Big Tent,” an entirely different approach to electoral strategy has emerged. According to this philosophy, the Party “leadership” attempts to determine what drives the passions of the masses, and then agrees to adopt such things as its own “core beliefs.”

By far, the most outstanding example of this approach was the Dole/Kemp campaign of 1996. Rather than building his base of support on leadership as did Reagan, Dole sought to do so by following. Unlike Reagan, who sought to raise the standard for all - up to the level of his ideals, Dole sought to lower his own standards to that of the lowliest participants. And while Reagan won two consecutive landslide victories, Dole succeeded in losing to possibly the worst President in the history of the country.

The track record of successes and failures for these differing approaches is altogether inarguable. For by continually trying to copy the Democrats, this “moderate” approach only serves to define its players as a cheap imitation. Why vote for the copycat Republican when one can vote for the real thing, which happens to be a Democrat? And if “statesmanship,” or even “compassion,” can be defined by the confiscation of one citizen’s earnings in order to buy the loyalty of another, why waste time with the comparatively “frugal” Republicans? Democrats will always be willing to spend more in this manner.

Nevertheless, these same “moderates” who are so bound and determined to dominate and thus define the party, remain clueless as to why they are unable to “connect” with voters. Much of Ronald Reagan’s success was attributed to “crossover voters” - conservative Democrats who were sufficiently inspired to support him. However, such common sense is completely supplanted in the minds of “moderates” by the notion that the way to appeal to Democrats is with watered-down liberalism, meaning an amoral social agenda, coupled with the standard Republican concern for big business and lower taxes.

And while neither a strong business base nor lowered tax rates are bad ideas, if they are the only issues on which the Party is willing to stand, the unmistakable impression is given that it is only concerned about “the rich.” Thus, the standard stereotype of “Rich Country Club Republicans” is further solidified in the minds of many Democrats who might otherwise be persuaded to support a principled and conservative Republican. The only possible reaction to this phenomenon by such rank and file Democrat voters is further alienation.

Conservatives within the GOP need to throw a little cold water into some “moderate” faces and wake them out of their stupor. Nothing worthwhile can possibly result from an effort to make tomorrow’s Republicans look as much as possible like today’s Democrats. Issues abound, school vouchers being one example, that could motivate many among the Democrats (especially inner city minorities with whom the Republican Party has traditionally been pathetically weak) to support Republican candidates.

Ultimately, if “crossover voters” are to be inspired by any promise from the Republicans, it must be something higher than that offered them by Democrats, and not merely something cheaper.

_________________________________________

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer who lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been involved in grassroots political activity for many years. Chris was the editor of the Wyoming Christian from 1994 to 1996, and his columns can also been seen at CheyenneNetwork.com.

Send the author an E mail at Adamo@ConservativeTruth.org.

For more of Christopher's articles, visit his archives.