|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
A New Republican Party? Paul Weyrich Lance Terrance is a pollster, an interpreter of survey results and an advisor to political candidates at all levels. We have been friends for more than thirty years. The other day when Lance and I were visiting, he pulled out a highlighted copy of a speech Ronald Reagan delivered thirty years ago this February. I had attended Reagan's speech at the C-PAC Dinner that cold day in 1977. Frankly, at the time, I was disappointed, just as I was when, speaking abroad, Reagan told Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and hundreds of others that we would "transcend Communism." At the time, I thought that was a wimpish way of avoiding a confrontation with the Soviets. But Reagan turned out to be correct. The Soviet Union fell without the firing of a shot. We did "transcend Communism" because, as Reagan reminded us, a system built on lies cannot last forever.
As with the daily radio commentaries found recently at the Reagan Library, each written in his own hand, I'll bet this speech was largely Reagan's doing.
First, he argued, with data recent at that time, that conservatives in this country are a majority. He then made the distinction between economic conservatives and social conservatives. Think of how remarkable that was because in 1977 none of the Religious Right groups had been organized and the Free Congress Foundation and the Rockford Institute stood nearly alone in pushing social issues. Reagan correctly identified social conservatives as associated with religious or ethnic groups. Story Continues Below
Reagan then called for the lines between social and economic conservatives largely to disappear. Reagan called for the creation of a new, lasting conservative majority. He called for a new Republican Party. He said such a party should be based on "principled conservatism."
He then set out an agenda which both wings of conservatism could accept. That included the free market, opposition to Communism, opposition to government which spends too much and must go into debt to pay for it, opposition to busing because it has failed, Jeffersonian patriotism and so on.
In this remarkable speech, Reagan correctly stated that conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanaticism "that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world." Here at Free Congress we have said for decades that conservatism is not an ideology but a way of life.
Here is how Reagan put it: "The common sense and the common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way—that is the heart of American conservatism today." He went on to say that "conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before."
Reagan said for the most part there is no ideological hold on the right for fanaticism but rather it is the enemies of freedom who are the fanatics. Reagan then pronounced respect for those who wanted to form a completely new political party. But he said after much consideration, he believed we could best achieve our principles through the Republican Party. Then he argued for a first new version of the GOP.
He slammed country-club Republicans and said the new Republican Party could not be seen merely as the party of big business. He said the reason he wanted to stick with the Republican Party was because the majority of conservatives were found there. "It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over."
For the rest of Reagan's speech, he laid out what he would expect of this "New Republican Party." He wanted to open the party to the factory worker, the farmer and the policeman on the beat. But he also said the millions of Americans who agree with conservative principles but who never thought of becoming a Republican should be sought after.
He said that already the Democratic Party had turned its back on the majority of social conservatives in the 1960s. He called for a major effort to reach out to them and to install them as leaders of the new Republican Party. That largely would be done with the help of Evangelicals and traditional Catholics.
He called for the sort of outreach to the Black community which some, but by no means all, have accorded Blacks in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland this year for the first time.
He wanted, in 1977, an aggressive outreach to good candidates. Reagan then laid out a platform for this new Republican Party which included everything from measuring our level of freedom in America, to advocating the elevation of families over the social welfare system, to maintaining a national defense second to none but only to attack when we are threatened. Our military strategy was to prevent a war, Reagan said that of the Soviets was meant to win a war. He made a big pitch for saving the Panama Canal. The speech also addressed Chile and China.
In short, it was an extraordinary speech for its time. The new Republican Party for which he called nearly has been built. It is a party capable of re-electing a somewhat unpopular President. It is a party which has gained control of both Houses of Congress for a decade.
Here is the problem. As Majority Leader William H. (Bill) Frist, M.D., told me, "I have a Republican majority but not a conservative majority." If he had an additional seven seats which were conservative he could do almost anything.
Absent those he is stuck passing much of what the House has passed and cannot get by the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture or to shut off debate, in the House, former Majority Leader Tom DeLay said his problem in the House was that he had 30 to 40 Greens. They always vote with the Democrats on environmental issues. Again, if he had had another 30 Republican House Members the current leadership could have passed almost anything.
We cannot sign off on a Presidential candidate simply because he is religious. He should be indeed, but we must pin that candidate down on specifics, such as the deployment of a real missile defense system, for one. It is a topic for another time but this country can be defended for around $30 billion with a system known as "brilliant pebbles." No candidate should get our support without pledging to deploy a system which protects all citizens, not just the West Coast.
We should pin the candidate down on actually doing something on right to life, marriage and so on. No candidate of ours should invade a sovereign nation unless it is a real threat to us. And so on. We cannot fault President George W. Bush. He campaigned on offering prescription drugs through Medicare. He favored what has become known as the "No Child Left Behind" measure. He did not betray us. He has been faithful to his campaign planks. Our problem is we did not really pin him down in a number of areas.
What we need to do now instead of whining about how disappointing these Republican majorities are, and how weak Bush is because he did not veto more measures, we need to get out there are build that "New Republican Party" for which Reagan called. And we should name it just that: The New Republican Party. Hopefully that party would adopt as its platform the Next Conservativism series.
Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation. Editor's note:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |