Hatfield Debate Forces GOP to Deal With Divisions, Discipline

Sen. Mark O. Hatfield, the Oregon Republican who broke party ranks and cast a crucial vote against the balanced-budget constitutional amendment, faces threats of retribution that are forcing a rare and emotional debate over whether GOP leaders should try to enforce party discipline on major issues.

The Senate’s 54 Republicans are expected to decide today whether to strip Hatfield of his post as chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee in retaliation for his defection on the balanced-budget amendment, which failed by one vote.

Hatfield is expected to beat back the challenge from conservative senators and retain his post. But the mere fact that the Republicans are considering such a move is a departure from the Senate’s tradition of comity--and from an American political tradition in which the parties encompass a wide range of ideologies and policy views.

Moreover, the fight over Hatfield focuses attention on the significant philosophical and generational divisions within the GOP.

Hatfield, whose views long ago established him as a maverick Republican, is a moderate in a party dominated by increasingly strident conservatives. He has parted ways with the party numerous times over the years, as a critic of nuclear weapons, increased defense spending and the GOP fiscal policies of the 1980s, and he has opposed the balanced-budget amendment in the past.

It remains to be seen whether Oregon voters will be as critical of his vote as conservatives in the Senate. State Sen. Randy Miller, chairman of the Oregon Republican Party, said Hatfield’s vote will not sit well with the party faithful in the state.

“There is a lot of support for Mark Hatfield, the person,” Miller said. “But there is certainly clear and unmistakable dissent over his position on the balanced-budget amendment. There is the kind of talk that might precipitate serious challenges” in the 1996 GOP primary, when Hatfield would be seeking a sixth term, although he has not said whether he will run.

Others in Oregon suggested that the reaction has been favorable. Bob Applegate, spokesman for Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber, said Hatfield will continue to find support from Democrats and Republicans alike.

“I think politics in Oregon are different than politics in the country at large,” Kitzhaber said. “The kind of people we’ve sent to Washington by and large reflect that. They’re people who are maverick and are willing to break the mold and stand alone.”

But within the Senate, Hatfield has become a lightning rod for intraparty animosity. After the amendment failed, some Republicans--mostly younger conservatives--said Hatfield should lose his powers as Appropriations chairman. They argued that leaders like the Senate’s committee chairmen have an obligation to toe the party line on issues as important as the balanced-budget amendment.

But most senators predicted that Hatfield would not be punished. “There isn’t the slightest possibility that he’s going to lose his chairmanship,” said Sen. Bob Packwood, a fellow Oregon Republican.

Many are reluctant to punish Hatfield, in part because they also may find themselves at odds with the majority of the party on other issues.

What’s more, senators say, heavy-handed party discipline is out of keeping with the individualist ethos that dominates the Senate.

“I don’t think we can beat people into submission,” said Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.). “I have always felt that it’s better to try and inspire people than to punish them.”

However, Republicans in the House have recently brought a more partisan approach to running Congress. The move to dump Hatfield is being pushed largely by the Senate’s younger generation of Republicans, many of whom came from the House and were schooled under the brand of Republicanism espoused by Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

Times staff writer Edwin Chen in Washington and special correspondent Elisabeth Dunham in Portland, Ore., contributed to this story.