Conservatism With a Happy Face

You’ve heard of the City of Brotherly Love? Well, brother, you’d better believe it, because for the next four days, this place is going to host a festival of good feeling, otherwise known as the Republican National Convention.

Oh, God--another political convention!

Wait. This one will be different. No imposing podium from which speakers hurl thunderbolts at the opposition. Instead, a stage set from which ordinary citizens will utter words of inspiration. No Newts. No Pats (Buchanan or Robertson). No attack politics. In fact, no politicians except for the GOP presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Nothing to spoil the happy face of the New Republican Party.

A New Republican Party? Excuse me, but isn’t this party about to nominate two conservative middle-aged white men? How exciting is that? When the Gallup Poll asked voters last week whether they thought Dick Cheney was an “exciting” choice for Texas Gov. George W. Bush’s running mate, two-thirds said “No.” In fact, most middle-aged white men said “No.” Viagra yes, Cheney no.

Bush wants to model his convention after the 1992 Democratic convention, the one that nominated Bill Clinton. That happens to be the most successful convention on record in terms of giving the ticket a “bounce”: 16 points in the polls. It’s where Clinton captured the change issue. Remember “the man from Hope”? “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow”? In Ross Perot’s words, Clinton “revitalized” the Democratic Party by moving it to the center. It was the first convention of the New Democrats.

Oddly, this year Bush seems to be reaching into the past to define his New Republican Party. The selection of Cheney, for example. Cheney was President Gerald R. Ford’s chief of staff in the 1970s. A leader of the House GOP in the 1980s. And President George Bush’s secretary of defense in the 1990s.

Your parents probably told you, “Do as I say, not as I do.” If President Bush ever said that, it looks like his son was listening. What the elder Bush did was pick Dan Quayle as his running mate. What the elder Bush said was pick Cheney. It’s hard to imagine a less Quayle-like choice. Cheney is usually described as solid, safe, seasoned and sound. Words not typically used to describe George W. Bush.

The Cheney choice had nothing to do with balancing the ticket. Cheney provides no ideological balance (another conservative). No demographic balance (another middle-aged white man). And no geographic balance: Cheney lives in Texas now. He had to re-register in Wyoming two weeks ago so he and Bush would come from different states!

Bush wasn’t aiming for balance. He was trying to make a statement. Several statements, in fact.

One was about maturity. After Bush named his man last week, the GOP line of the day was that, with Cheney, there would be “a grown-up” in the White House. They thought they were taking a swipe at Clinton. But what were they really saying about Bush? President Bush’s national-security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, said, “What [Cheney] brings is what Gov. Bush does not have, and that is practical experience.” Does Cheney add experience and knowledgeability to the ticket? Or does his presence on the ticket call attention to Bush’s weaknesses? That’s the problem with surrounding yourself with impressive establishment figures like Cheney. You don’t know if they make you look more impressive. Or more like a front man.

Democrats call the GOP ticket a retread, a return to the past. Do voters want to go back to Bush I? In some ways, yes.

When he was up for reelection in November 1992, President Bush’s job rating was down to 34%. But earlier this year, when Americans were asked whether they approve or disapprove of the way former President Bush handled his job, his rating was up to 74%. Higher than Clinton’s.

Bush I sends a mixed message. Democrats will remind voters of why they did not rehire Bush for a second term. He couldn’t manage the economy. He was out of touch with ordinary Americans. But there were also things voters liked. Like the president’s impeccable character. And his record of international leadership.

When Bush II gave his big foreign-policy speech in May, he had Scowcroft, Henry A. Kissinger, Colin L. Powell and George P. Shultz on stage with him. Bush II was trying to link himself, visibly, with his dad’s world stature. What better way to do that than to have the defense secretary from the Gulf War as running mate?

Reviving Reagan’s Republican Party.

With the conservative vote locked up, young Bush is supposed to reach out to moderate swing voters. Can Cheney do that? In his 10 years in Congress (1979-89), Cheney compiled a solidly conservative voting record. In 1985 and 1986, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action gave him a zero rating. He voted 100% with the American Conservative Union.

Cheney opposed federal funding for abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. He opposed all gun controls, even a ban on “cop killer” armor-piercing bullets. He opposed funding Head Start, and even the Department of Education. He supported aid to the Nicaraguan Contras, even after Congress passed a moratorium on funding. Will Democrats try to portray Cheney as a hard-line right-winger? You bet. “He is probably as far right as anybody in the Republican Party today,” Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said last week.

Two middle-aged white male conservatives. This is the New Republican Party? What’s new is that Cheney, like Bush, is not harshly partisan. He can work with more moderate Republicans.

This week’s convention will exude lovingkindness. Notice how Bush always asks people to judge him by “what is in my heart.” (Question: How do we know what is in his heart? All we know is what is on his record.) A candidate for vice president is supposed to be an attack dog: Remember Spiro T. Agnew? But in his first public statement after agreeing to be on the ticket, Cheney said, “I look forward to working with you, governor, to change the tone in Washington, to restore a spirit of civility and respect and cooperation.”

Bush and Cheney represent a kinder, gentler conservatism. As opposed to a harsh, confrontational conservatism. Last week, conservative author David Frum wrote, “If Mr. Cheney is conservative, he’s not ‘a conservative’; he’s not someone whom the right wing of the Republican Party recognizes as one of its own.”

When Bush talks about a new image for the Republican Party, the old image he’s trying to put aside is the one from the 1990s. Specifically, three signal events that defined the GOP in the last decade.

One was the 1992 Houston convention, when the weakened and demoralized Bush forces allowed the right wing to take over the party. Like, for example, Buchanan’s prime-time speech when he said, “As [the troops] took back the streets of Los Angeles, block by block, so we must take back our cities and take back our culture and take back our country.” No Ronald Reagan-like optimism or expansiveness there.

The Gingrich revolution was the second signal event. Wait a minute. The 1994 election was a high point for Republicans, when they finally realized their dream of taking control of Congress after 40 years in the wilderness.

Yes, but they learned the wrong lesson. ’94 was a negative referendum on Clinton, the year of the angry white man. So congressional Republicans assumed a negative, confrontational style would continue to pay off. Clinton outsmarted them, however. He stole their agenda and forced Republicans farther and farther to the right. When Congress shut down the federal government, the angry white men turned on it.

The GOP’s negative, confrontational style reached a climax in the third defining event of the 1990s: impeachment. Which ended up destroying House Speaker Newt Gingrich, not Clinton.

Bush and Cheney are clean. They had nothing to do with the Houston convention, or the Gingrich revolution, or impeachment. Bush wants to reach back to a more positive conservative style: Reagan conservatism, not Gingrich conservatism. The two brands of conservatism are no different on principles. The difference is style. Bush is trying to revive the Reagan image of the party: tolerant, compassionate and inclusive.

He’s also betting the way to reach swing voters isn’t with ideology. He could have done that by picking a running mate with a more “centrist” profile, like Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge. Bush hopes to reach swing voters with a new message: civility. He’ll stop the bickering. Which is why this GOP convention will be upbeat. And why Cheney won’t be an attack dog.

When he announced Cheney, Bush said, “I have to admit something. I didn’t pick Dick Cheney because of Wyoming’s three electoral votes.” In other words, this is not a political calculation. How could it be? Where’s the balance?

The conventional wisdom is that Bush’s choice was about governing, not about politics. He’s so confident about winning he picked someone who doesn’t fit any political strategy. What a cocky guy!

But doing that is itself a political strategy. Everything Vice President Gore does seems to be driven by political calculation. “No controlling legal authority”; let Elian Gonzalez stay here. In picking Cheney, Bush was making the statement, “Unlike Gore, I am not driven by political calculation.” What a brilliant calculation!

In the end, Bush and Cheney are offering conservatism with a happy face. It’ll be fascinating to watch the convention this week and see hard-line conservatives trying to get with the program. Will Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) smile? Will Bob Dole share?

Conservatives are certainly in no mood to give Bush trouble. They understand this election is their last chance. If Bush loses, the message will be loud and clear: The Republican Party can no longer win as a conservative party. It has to change.

Guess whose message that is? None other than Sen. John McCain’s.