Moderate Republicans Need A Tougher, Sharper Identity

In a column in today's Washington Post, commentator E.J. Dionne points to Sen. Arlen Specter's narrow victory in Tuesday's primary as evidence of the near-death status of the moderate Republican movement.

Moderate Republicans aren't dead yet, but they have a lot of work to do to clarify their identity and expand their movement.

So far, centrist Republicans have mostly defined themselves as "socially tolerant, fiscally moderate." That's a good framework -- it's where many Americans are.

And it's true that the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership -- a successful fund-raising group -- has a long list of members.

But there is little cohesion among the moderates on policy, and social conservatives do not really seem welcome in the group.

Moderate Republicans need to work toward two goals: (1) toughening and sharpening their policy principles and proposals, and (2) attracting more social conservatives to their movement.

The Main Street group would do itself a huge favor by formulating its own budget and tax plans, like the conservative Democratic "Blue Dog" coalition does. Moderate Republicans need a clearly defined balanced budget position and a set of no-nonsense entitlement reform proposals.

Balancing budgets and reforming entitlements is politically difficult. For many, it would require movement to the right on fiscal issues.

Some Republican moderates, like Sen. Specter, would prefer an image of a pork-barrel spending procurer, not a budget cutter. Others may be afraid of Democrats' idiotic-but-effective attack ads on Medicare or Social Security.

However, if moderate Republicans don't show more backbone on balancing the budget, fiscally conservative voters might decide a Democrat could do the job better. Why elect a fiscally irresponsible Republican? Why not just get a Democrat? At least Democrats are willing to raise taxes to pay for all the spending.

Second, entitlement reform -- difficult as it is -- has an extremely important political benefit. It could help inoculate moderate legislators against primary challenges funded by the radical right-wing "destroy government" crowd. The Club for Growth, which espouses a weird near-anarchist vision of government privatization (along with, of course, zero taxes for rich people), would have a harder time attacking a candidate who had a strong position on entitlement reform.

There are many social conservatives who don't have a home in the radical anti-tax Republican Party, which emphasizes tax cuts for the wealthy above any other priority.

These conservatives don't really believe the anti-tax zealots' claim that tax cuts spur so much economic growth that they raise revenues -- there's just too much evidence to the contrary. They worry about deficits, and our economy's growing susceptibility to the whims of foreign capital markets.

Besides, their constituents don't benefit very much from tax cuts targeted to wealthy people. Their voters actually are better off with more progressive taxes, and decent government services.

This was made clear in Virginia by a Republican state legislator faced with a tough budget decision. He said, "I love tax cuts, but I love Virginia more."

There are many social conservatives in Congress who love tax cuts. But they love their country more.

These pro-America, pro-strength social conservatives know it is wrong to attempt to destroy the government through deficits. The extreme anti-tax strategy risks diluting American power and influence in the world.

Moderate Republicans should embrace social conservatives who are fed up with deficits, reckless political opportunism, and a lack of vision for the future.

Their new slogans should be:

"socially tolerant, really"
"fiscally conservative, but progressive"
"problem-solvers for the future"

A coalition of socially liberal and socially conservative Republicans, united to balance the budget and address the future budgetary problems caused by the baby boom generation's retirement, would be formidable.

Link:
Washington Post The GOP's Vanishing Breed by E.J. Dionne (April 30, 2004)

Posted by Jeff Lemieux at April 30, 2004 01:52 PM