Recently we’ve seen the United States Senate change hands as a result of Sen. Jim Jeffords’ decision to leave the Republican Party.
Jeffords, despite more than a quarter of a century as a GOP officeholder, has a voting record far to the left of any other Republican in either house of Congress. Given that and the fact his home state of Vermont is one of those out-of-the-way places where liberalism still clings tightly, Jeffords’ decision is arguably the best for himself, though the consequences for America and the Republican agenda are less positive.
The switch has raised anew the question about the GOP’s future — whether it can continue to promote itself as a ‘big tent’ party or whether its commitment, under President Bush, to more conservative principles undercuts that image.
Being a conservative myself, I might be expected to claim that the GOP can be both a ‘big tent’ party and a party with a clear set of principles that distinguish it from its competitors. So I won’t expect anyone to take my word for it.
The truth is, the Republican agenda under President Bush is much closer to the American mainstream than is the political agenda of new Senate Plurality Leader Tom Daschle.
And the agenda of Senate Republicans having been moved closer to the mainstream by Sen. Jeffords’ defection, the outcome is very much to the GOP’s benefit. It may seem uncordial to wish the Senator a fond bon voyage, but sometimes, as now, the truth lacks good manners.
As noted May 25 in the Newnan (GA) Times-Herald by one Angela Webster, Jeffords’ position on Bush’s education package was so far from “moderate” that even Ted Kennedy had to drift leftward to match him.
I’m sorry, but anyone capable of pulling Kennedy to the left is not a moderate, and isn’t likely to have better than a spy-satellite’s view of the nation’s political mainstream.
It’s one thing to say that the Republican Party must have room for all points of view, but it’s another thing entirely to expect that such marketing won’t be at odds with the real purpose of a political party, which is to enact a coherent political agenda through such activities as electing candidates.
If the GOP existed only to elect candidates, without having a more or less common set of goals those candidates are expected to pursue, our elections might as well be about choosing between Coke and Pepsi.
This is not to say that Republicans can’t still pursue a ‘big tent’ objective — after all, they can’t win national elections without a broad base of support for their agenda — but they have to recognize that the ‘big tent’ and the ‘party of principle’, while not absolutely incompatible, can nevertheless pull them in conflicting directions. The ongoing debate over how to achieve balance between the two will always be charged, but healthy for the party.
I think one thing all Republicans should be able to agree on — with the possible exception of those like Jeffords who often find themselves to the left of Ted Kennedy — is that the notion of the ‘big tent’ has to be kept within reason.
The GOP can do a lot of damage to the competition by demonstrating at every opportunity that it is they who are closest to the mainstream. Pandering to way-out-there ‘Republicans’ for no better reason than to stave off what many have regarded as an inevitable change in Senate control, doesn’t really serve that end.
For one thing, it feeds the misperception, happily promoted by Democrats, that President Bush could never get his agenda enacted without Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. Most of what he has gotten through Congress has passed with the support of even Senate Democrats. The President has well-deserved confidence in what he stands for.
As a Republican of the conservative persuasion, I can relate.
