Unstable Base?

Unstable Base?
by Linda A. Prussen-Razzano

No matter which way one turns, George W. Bush is under constant attack. Despite polls that show him firmly in first place, despite a massive war chest comprised of small, individual donations from hearty supporters, despite a well-organized campaign of professional political advisers, the slings and arrows keep coming -- left and right.

In some ways, Bush has the Clinton Legacy to blame for his current state of affairs. In the kindest possible terms, the Clinton Legacy adds up to a complete degradation of the White House. Forget about redefining "is," "sex," and "alone." The Clinton Administration slapped the Vietnam vets by fully normalizing trade relations with Vietnam. It shafted the Utah School Trust Fund by creating the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. It sandbagged the State and Defense Departments by easing restrictions and shifting responsibilities for dual-use technology transfers to Commerce. It coldcocked American national security by ignoring espionage and allowing individuals access to top-secret material without proper clearance. It libeled a number of female American citizens by labeling them as sluts and liars. It betrayed the American people by lying to them daily.

Liberals are now itching for a chance to tear into the Republican Party's top gun. If he comes out too strongly on an issue, he's not compassionate enough. If he takes the middle road on an issue, he's wishy-washy or an "empty suit." What they fail to realize is the attacks against Bush will not ever restore the reputation of Bill Clinton. The man is damaged goods and the latest polls show that Americans finally realize it; however, this will not prevent them from trying to destroy Bush, no matter how ridiculous the allegations or unsubstantiated the charges.

Alternately, staunch conservatives are launching attacks of their own. After seven years of depravity and stupidity at the highest levels of government, they see yawning before them an abyss of destructive statism, shrunken national sovereignty, rapidly eroding personal rights, and flowering moral relativism. They want a hard-right candidate, and they want him now! Incremental conservatism will not satisfy; they want in-your-face conservatism to counteract all the ground lost during the last two terms. As a result, any moderate stance taken by Bush is seen as a slight to them and any tempered response is perceived, however incorrectly, as "caving."

Should Bush be concerned about the staunch conservatives? Of course. A Zogby poll conducted on December 8, 1999 indicated that, at the very least, 19.2% of voters are backing candidates with a distinctly conservative and moral message. The Republican Party would be foolish to believe all these voters will toe the line come November.

As much as Buchanan's candidacy is being discounted by the pundits, he champions two key positions dear to hardline conservatives: he is unshakably pro-life and firmly against global governing bodies. Presuming he receives the Reform Party nomination, will Buchanan offer a real fight for the presidency? That's doubtful. Nevertheless, he will siphon off enough votes from disenfranchised conservatives to make a painful dent in the Republican Party's base votes.

A grave, but correctable, misstep in the Bush camp came from his move directly to the "moderate" center (for which his advisors sorely deserve a good tongue-lashing). They may have quietly assured conservative leaders that their particular issues will be advanced, but these assurances have not filtered down to the rank and file. Bush must secure that unstable base because, if he doesn't, it will surely fracture underneath him.

As much as the liberal press likes to whine otherwise, Bush is a progressive centrist with conservative leanings, not a staunch conservative. If the Republican Party offers yet another centrist as Vice President, I predict its base will definitely fracture; some will support Bush, some will go Reform, a few will vote for the Constitution Party, and the rest will stay home. If a bona-fide conservative is chosen, the base will quickly and quietly fall in line, believing its voice in the White House will affect policy when it matters most.

The Republican Party should have paid notice in 1996; they didn't. One would think they learned their lesson in 1998; they didn't. They cannot continue pandering to conservatives during the election cycle and then ignoring them during the administrative term. Conservatives are tired of receiving the sidedoor kisses as the discreet mistress. They want that night on the town the public wife gets. My circles indicate that their affection, no matter how great in the past, is wearing dangerously thin.

Let's hope Republicans don't make the same mistake in 2000. A Gore Presidency is about as appealing as having root canal performed while giving birth -- both without painkillers. The only thing you can do is pray for it to be over as quickly as possible.