GOP Must Define Its Basic Essence, Offer Clear Vision of Future

EDITOR’S NOTE: On Feb. 28, Orange County Voices carried columns on the future of the Republican Party from two thoughtful Orange County writers representing conservative and moderate viewpoints.

At that time we offered this page as a forum and invited readers to join the debate by submitting their views on the future of the GOP and what its themes, appeals and programs should be.

The comments published here are a representative sample of the responses received.

GOP Should ‘Emulate (Reagan’s) Philosophy of Less Government’

To regain the momentum Republicans enjoyed in the early 1980s under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party must regain its credibility as the party of less taxes and less government spending.

The Reagan tax cuts of 1981 resulted in 19 million new jobs for Americans. Through the mid-1980s, our nation enjoyed 72 continuous months of economic growth. The Reagan economic policies were indeed hampered by a Congress reluctant to reduce spending, but the tax-cut Reagan was able to achieve improved the economic well-being of our country as a whole.

The Reagan tax cuts were consistent with his well-articulated advocacy of less government. This philosophy was successful in winning two elections as California governor, two presidential elections, and had coattails which carried Republican majorities. However, 1992 was a different story for Republicans.

The real blame for the Republicans’ electoral defeat in 1992 is with George Bush. One simple policy decision--abandoning his “read my lips” no-tax pledge--not only set in motion forces which further intensified the recession, but constituted one of the biggest political blunders in a lifetime. Bush threw away a brilliant opportunity to frame his reelection campaign as a crusade against a corrupt Congress which refuses to reduce spending. And with this decision, he did serious damage to the campaigns of other Republicans, and called the future of the party into question.

Ross Perot’s success can in large measure be attributed to Bush’s breaking of the no-tax pledge. Bush’s action created a blurring of the traditional distinctions between the two major parties, and in the eyes of many voters, including Republicans, it gave them a reason to vote for Perot. Perot appeared the better choice because in their eyes he was not a part of the collusive “inside the Beltway” Washington crowd.

Recent political history demonstrates that when the Republican Party strays from its traditional role as the party of less taxes and less spending, it loses elections. The current low popularity of (California) Gov. (Pete) Wilson can be attributed in no small measure to his tax increase here in California, and the combination of the Bush and Wilson actions, coupled with the abandonment of California by the Bush campaign, resulted in a significant loss of Republican seats in the state Legislature, in a year when a fair reapportionment should have meant Republican gains.

Republicans must learn from history to be successful. Philosophical underpinnings are essential for the Republican Party. Regardless of a person’s position on the so-called social issues of abortion and school prayer, the core philosophy and the most successful political strategy of Republicans has been to support tax cuts and spending reduction: i.e., less government. When Republicans abandon this core philosophy, they forsake their central distinguishing characteristic from the Democrats, who are the party of big government.

The need for sticking to its core philosophy is even more necessary by the continuing presence of Ross Perot on the political scene. Perot has the resources to continue drawing voters to him who feel the Republican Party doesn’t stand for anything. If Republicans can focus on the less government, less taxes theme and mean it, the Perot balloon can be pricked.

At the national level, what Republicans must do is draw a line in the sand and say no to President Clinton’s new taxes. It’s clear that some Republican leaders have not come to that conclusion, however. Recently, Sen. Phil Gramm announced his Republican alternative to the Clinton economic plan. The Gramm plan, according to the Wall Street Journal, leaves open the need for $55 billion in additional taxes to achieve the same deficit reduction target as the Clinton plan. Such a response further blurs the distinction between Democrats and Republicans. We need a bold response, no me-tooism.

If Republicans want to repeat the successes built upon the career of Ronald Reagan, they need to emulate his basic, conservative political philosophy of less government.

JAMES V. LACY

Newport Beach