James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, can be ordered directly from Winepress Publishers — 1-877-421-READ (7323); $12.95, plus S&H. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at jkfitz42@aol.com.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
I admit that I am a Republican. But I am not an enthusiastic member of the party, or a Republican activist. And I have not been a member of the party for all that long. I was a member of the Conservative Party in New York State from the late 1960s until I moved from New York in the late 1990s. I switched to the Republican Party only because there was no conservative third party I found acceptable while living in North Carolina for two years, or where I am now living in Connecticut. I am not complaining. I usually find the Republican platform acceptable. But if I were still living in New York State, I would be in the Conservative Party, or perhaps would have joined the Right-to-Life Party. I say all this to convince you that I am not playing partisan politics with what follows.
Some of the angriest letters I have received over the years have been from readers who protest my tendency to back a Republican who is soft on issues such as abortion, gay rights or immigration. I admit: I tend to view elections as a choice between the two candidates who have a chance of winning, not as a vehicle for registering a protest vote, certainly not when the protest vote aids the cause of a truly unattractive candidate. It was for that reason that I wrote columns favoring Rudy Giuliani’s and George Bush’s candidacies, even though I agreed with Catholic critics who argued that they were soft on homosexual issues and abortion. I supported Bush even though Pat Buchanan’s views are much closer to my own. In my opinion, it is better to have someone like Bush as president than Al Gore, even though Bush is likely to disappoint on issues important to us, such as immigration and abortion.
I understand the point of view of those who disagree. I respect those who say they will “never compromise” by voting for a candidate who is “pro-choice” or a supporter of homosexual revolution, who see a vote for such a candidate as a collaboration with evil. I also respect those who say they would “rather lose” an election than support a pro-abortion politician. My point just now is that we can’t expect the leaders of a political party to take such a stance. We can't expect them to take a position that will make them perennial losers at the ballot box.
It is here that the issue comes to a head. Conservative critics of the Republican Party argue that the Republicans would not hurt their chances at the ballot box if they took a stronger stand against legal abortions and for a more restrictive immigration policy. These critics will point to polls that show substantial majorities favor more restrictions on abortions and a severe limitation on immigration. They argue that the Republicans would increase their chances of victory at the polls if they got in step with the more conservative views of the electorate.
Samuel Francis is perhaps the most articulate proponent of this position, especially on the question of immigration. In a recent column, he chided George Bush and the Republican leadership for “pandering to Hispanics”: “He’s chattered in Spanish in his weekly radio address, celebrated Cinco de Mayo in the White House, and festooned the Republican convention with as many Hispanics, blacks, Asians, women and such other exotic fauna as he could lay his hands on.”
Francis dismisses the claims of Republican officials who believe that this approach is working. He cites Rep. David Drier of California, who is convinced that Republicans “are building on President George W. Bush’s message of inclusion. Our message of liberty, freedom and economic opportunity is tailored for the Hispanic community.” Dreier points to the fact that polls in California now show that 82 percent of California Hispanics have a “favorable view” of Bush, which is considerably higher than just a year ago.
“The problem,” says Francis, “is that the same polls show Hispanic voters supporting Democratic congressional candidates in the state by 53 percent, and only 23 percent supporting Republicans. If the Republicans are going to play the politics of pander, they’ll have to come up with more than Dreier, President Bush and their platitudes can promise.”
Francis argues that Republicans would do far better by calling for the kind of limitations on immigration, both legal and illegal, that the polls say nearly 70 percent of the American voters want. Why chase the Hispanic vote when you can’t win it without signing on to the Democrat’s agenda that the majority of Hispanic voters favor? Why not go after the majority that favors more restrictive immigration policy? Similarly, why not go after the majority that favors greater restrictions on legal abortions?
Good questions. But here’s what puzzles me. Isn’t it logical to assume that Republican leaders have pondered them? They see the same polls the rest of us do. They know that large majorities in the polls favor greater limits on abortion and immigration. Then what’s going on?
One theory is that the Republican leaders are part of an upper class elite that favors legalized abortion and the cheap labor provided by large numbers of immigrants. I guess that could be the answer. But I don’t think so. Let me propose another way to look at it.
I don’t know this for sure. I am no Republican insider. I have no access to secret polls. But I would bet the ranch that the Republicans have polls that indicate that immigration and abortion are issues that turn elections. We must remember that it does not matter if 70 percent of those polled want more limits on abortion and immigration. What matters is how they vote on these issues. My guess is that the Republicans have come to the conclusion that calling for more restrictions on immigration and abortion causes large numbers of voters, who may be leaning toward Republican candidates on the other issues, to vote for the Democrat. In other words, women who are supporters of capital punishment, free trade and are opposed to affirmative action policies (the so-called Republican issues), will vote for a Democrat nonetheless, if the Republican is against legal abortion. They are single issue voters on this issue.
Likewise, fair or not, there are Hispanics who agree with the Republicans on nine issues out of ten, who will vote for the Democrats if they are convinced that the Republicans’ call for restrictions on immigration is a reflection of a growing “anti-Hispanic” sentiment in the country. Ethnic pride determines their vote in that case.
But wouldn’t the majority that favors more restrictions on immigration and abortion be able to get its way, if they also were single issue voters on these questions? They would. But what if the Republican internal polls show that they are not single issue voters on these issues? That would mean that coming out strong for limits on immigration and against legal abortions – regardless of what the majority says in the polls – loses elections.
If that is the case, the criticism should be of the American voter for not voting his convictions on these issues, rather than on Republican politicians trying to win elections. If they did, the Republican leaders would be “pandering” to them. There is something noble about going down, guns blazing in a noble lost cause. But that is not what the leaders of a political party are appointed to do. I submit that it is unrealistic to expect them to lead such a crusade.
