What's In A Label?

It's a question I've asked in this space many times; when is a Republican a Republican?

The Arlen Spector flap has brought the divide between "moderate" and "conservative" Republicans into stark relief (although it's not that simple - there are many divisions within both wings of the party as well), in ways that have parallels here in Minnesota.

Captain Ed writes:

picking a fight with Arlen Specter is a poor choice of battles. Specter is not the only center-left Republican in the Senate; Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chaffee ally naturally with Specter, and John McCain has expressed support for the Pennsylvanian as well. Denying Specter the natural ascension to the chair that he expects will alienate at least these three votes from the whip, making filibusters all but inevitable.

Even that isn't really the issue. Republicans have to learn how to be a majority party. We've talked for years about being a big-tent party, but without allowing members to dissent on issues, talk is all it is. Specter, Snowe, and Chaffee know that their views won't carry the day but they do expect to be able to express them without being threatened with oblivion. In return, they support the majority of the party's initiatives and provide needed support to the President in getting his legislative agenda as a whole through Congress.

There's something to that.

If we start demanding ideological purity, we will drive off a significant level of support not only for Bush in the Senate but from the electorate as a whole. There's something to that.

I agree with Hugh Hewitt about Spector - he's gone a long way toward repaying the party for his Bork debacle. And he may well support the party 75% of the time.

My question: Isn't there a minimum standard that someone should meet to be a "Republican?" Jim Jeffords clearly didn't meet that standard - and thankfully left the party.

Still, to be "big tent" Party in any intellectually-honest way, you have to allow dissent, even radical dissent, on a lot of issues. But there have to be a few that everyone agrees on. What are they?

Taxes? Foreign policy? Corporate Welfare? Abortion? Death penalty? Second Amendment? Federal Judges?

On which issues is there any wiggle room?

Why did the Democrats lose their majority status in the first place? We've spent the entire presidential election lamenting the loss of the Scoop Jackson Democrats, opposition members that supported a strong national defense and foreign policy. The International ANSWER wing of the Democratic Party drove them off over the last years of their majority status when they demanded a politically-correct party line and brooked no dissent.

As an example, can you imagine a pro-life Democrat being given any kind of leadership position now? He or she would be driven from office by a combination of Emily's List, NOW, and a half-dozen other advocacy groups in the next primary.

If we want to maintain our ascendancy, we need to develop the maturity to allow those who agree with us on 75% of the issues to feel as though they belong in the GOP. Specter has already been put on notice, and as long as he has something to lose (the chair), he will be pressured to support the President's legislative agenda and judicial nominations. If he has nothing left to lose, we face not only six years of obstructionism by Specter but likely a coalition of centrist GOP Senators that will coalesce to hold the GOP majority hostage in the next two.

On the one hand, I agree.

On the other hand, taken to its extreme, it's what gives us "Republicans" that meet the Nick Coleman test; Republicans that favor abortion, gun control, tax hikes, intrusive government and the teacher's union, endorse Democrat candidates...

Where do Republicans draw the line?

Posted by Mitch at November 15, 2004 04:35 AM | TrackBack