Social and Fiscal Conservatism Can Coexist

In the aftermath of President Clinton’s impeachment trial, I fear that many of my fellow Republicans are drawing exactly the wrong conclusions. Some have suggested that in order to win, we have to be more like our nation’s current chief executive and let our agenda be dictated by polls rather than principles.

These members of our party are terribly wrong. And their reported public remarks during a recent gathering in Florida did nothing to build confidence in their approach to winning election battles. When Republicans repeat the Democratic and media mantra of “mean-spirited” and “vindictive,” they are only dividing the party rather than trying to bring us together.

Many of the same folks strongly object to the party’s commitment to social conservatism. Social conservatism means better schools, no tolerance for illegal drugs, a policy of true equality and nondiscrimination and respect for the sanctity of life. Economic conservatives believe in reduced taxes, less regulation, a more efficient legal system and a progressive growth agenda. I’m an economic and a social conservative, and today’s Republican Party properly includes both views.

The theory that the GOP must choose one or the other is flawed and potentially disastrous. But I also believe that those of us who care deeply about the state of the culture and the strength of the family should not hesitate to make it clear that values, not dollars, matter most. Attempting to create a prosperous America that does not know right from wrong cannot be the mission of the Republican Party.

While some Republicans may believe that sacrificing our voice on social issues may yield more votes, the record of national elections over the last 20 years supports the opposite conclusion. So, let’s stop whining and get to work.

For starters, disregard the fears that our party will suffer in 2000 because of the impeachment. It was a courageous and principled action, and the voters will recognize it as such. The Democratic leadership has endorsed the principle that there is one standard of justice for those in high office and another for the rest of Americans. That will be an issue in the next campaign.

We lost the presidency in 1992 and 1996, and failed to gain ground in Congress in 1998 because we didn’t present our vision forcefully enough. The last time we stood for principle was in 1994, the year we captured control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. We can do it again by placing our priorities squarely before the people and explaining what we want to do for our country.

We want more freedom, lower taxes, better local schools, stronger families, a well-equipped military with a viable missile defense. Name the issue and, in every case, you will find that Republicans are for reforms that will improve lives.

On the other side, you will find Bill Clinton and Al Gore standing rigidly in defense of the high-tax, anti-military, pro-big government status quo.

Let’s be bold and refuse to back down from a philosophy that we know in our hearts is best for America. That means saying what is right, not necessarily what may be convenient or popular at a given moment. That means giving the American people a clear philosophical choice.

Our conservative ideas are worth fighting for. And they are the keys to victory in 2000.