Now That End Is Near, GOP Can’t Let Go

Can the Republicans get a life? Or will they continue to obsessively poke about in the dregs of impeachment minutiae, proving to all the world that they have nothing better to do? Like those trapped in a bad marriage, the Republicans’ bickering to the bitter end suggests that daily strife has become preferable to the uncertainty of starting over.

Their root argument is not with the president but among themselves. In a few short years, the Gingrich revolution has eaten its own, and a party recently thought to be in tune with the basic needs of the public now appears terminally mean-spirited and beside the point. The party of personal liberty has embraced government by tribunal, and its lawyers have been encouraged to run amok. Consider that the point man for conservatives these past four years has been Kenneth Starr, a sinisterly prudish inquisitor employing the power of the state to intrude on the most private of moments. Simultaneously, as private attorney, he stands with the corporate oligarchs against the interests of ordinary folk.

Starr’s skewed agenda was again on display in a “60 Minutes” expose Sunday detailing his efforts to keep secret GM’s knowledge of the design flaw of one of its cars, which caused two boys to be burned to death. Starr’s role in providing legal justification for GM executives facing accusations of perjury was consistent with his defense of the anti-consumer interests of big tobacco; not for him law in the public interest.

Sure, there are more compassionate conservatives around. But no sooner did the most prominent among them, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, float his presidential balloon than almost all of the other likely Republican candidates denounced him as if eager to prove that the very phrase Bush chose to describe himself, “compassionate conservative,” was an oxymoron.

“Weasel words,” fumed former Gov. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. And former Vice President Dan Quayle boldly announced, “I have ordered my staff to never, ever utter the words ‘compassionate conservative!’ ” And not because those are particularly difficult words to spell. Not to be outdone, Steve Forbes denounced Bush, saying that “mealy-mouthed rhetoric and poll-tested cliches are no substitute for a muscular, substantive agenda.”

Lost in the tirade is the obvious: The slogan “compassionate conservative” tests well with the public because it’s a good thing. Conservatives, after all, are supposed to preserve rather than destroy, so why shouldn’t they be concerned about the human consequences of their actions?

Bush’s reelection in Texas demonstrated strong appeal across party lines precisely because his message was one of inclusion. He refers to himself as a “unifier not a divider.” He pointedly refused to join California Gov. Pete Wilson in bashing immigrants, distanced himself from those who would exclude gays from the party and has not made abortion a high profile issue, preferring to accept the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe vs. Wade as settled law. While a fiscal conservative, he’s been a big booster of increased funding for public education and proposed raising business taxes for that purpose.

In short, Bush is not all that different from Bill Clinton or Al Gore, a progressive, centrist new Southerner who recognizes the legitimate role of government programs and refuses to play the race card. Nothing exceptional in that, were it not for the fact that the recently dominant right wing of the GOP has drifted so far afield. Indeed, GOP leaders have become angry scolds, guilting us at every divisive turn while shunning all who are less pure in their devotion to the so-called Christian right that has a stranglehold on the party’s primaries.

The electoral base of the GOP is mired in the politics of the old South, where the Dixiecrat wing of the Democrats used to be. It’s no accident that Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi and Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia found themselves so comfortable in addressing an avowedly racist group that stands in respect for “Dixie.”

The much-talked-about “cultural war” said to be repeating now from the ‘60s is not about permissiveness but rather inclusion. The civil rights movement, that seminal achievement of the ‘60s, was not anti-religious--indeed, it was guided by Judeo-Christian teachings--and its message was overwhelmingly one of tolerance. That’s a message that the party of Lincoln ought to be able to again embrace. If not, they should nominate Starr for president and descend faster than a punctured hot air balloon.