• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

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.