Posted on 07/28/2002 7:28:52 PM PDT by Weirdad
Obtained for fair use via OCR from the paper Texas Eagle Forum TORCH, Summer 2002, Volume 9, Number 4. One of the main features of any political convention is adoption of the platform, the statement of our beliefs and goals. A party platform is like the flag soldiers carry into battle. It's the symbol of what we care about and what we think is worth our work and sacrifice. A party platform is our statement of principles, set forth in the hope that like-minded Americans will come and join us. A party platform is the standard to which we hope we can hold our public officials. At the 1960 Republican National Convention in Chicago, Richard Nixon was expected to be the presidential nominee. New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller nursed a lifetime ambition to be President and, since he couldn't beat Nixon for the nomination, he decided instead to make a fight to put his liberal planks in the Platform. Rockefeller was the head of the New York, liberal, Big-Government, internationalist wing of the Republican Party that supported foreign and domestic policies similar to those of the Democrats. If Rockefeller were alive today, we would call him a RINO: Republican In Name Only. Just before the 1960 Convention, Nixon suddenly made a pilgrimage to New York City where he met for eight hours with Rockefeller at his Fifth Avenue apartment. At the end of the day, Nixon agreed to support all the changes in the Platform dictated by Rockefeller. Nixon returned to Chicago and handed the Platform Committee Delegates their orders: throw out your week's work of drafting a document and accept all 14 Rockefeller demands. They acquiesced. Senator Barry Goldwater, who was a very popular leader at the 1960 Convention, labeled the new Nixon alliance a "surrender to Rockefeller" and "a bid to appease the Republican left." He said it would "live in history as the Munich of the Republican Party" and guarantee "a Republican defeat in November." Unfortunately, Goldwater's prediction was accurate, and we then had to endure the two terms of JFK and LBJ. Now, let's fast forward to the 1976 Republican Convention in Kansas City. Republicans were very unhappy because President Richard Nixon had turned out to be a RINO on almost every foreign and domestic issue. Watergate was followed by the accidental presidency of Gerald Ford, who chose Nelson Rockefeller for his Vice-President. Conservative dissatisfaction inspired Governor Ronald Reagan to challenge the incumbent President Ford. Reagan narrowly lost the nomination, but with hindsight we can see that the real importance of the 1976 Convention was the Platform. A first-term Senator from a southern state named Jesse Helms decided that the 1976 Republican Platform was the place to make a fight for the conservative principles that had eroded under Nixon, Ford and his chief advisor Henry Kissinger. Helms wanted to get the Convention to adopt a strong Republican Platform that stood for principles we could be proud of, instead of the appeasement and retreat that characterized the Nixon and Ford Administrations. So, at the 1976 Republican Convention in Kansas City, Senator Jesse Helms led the battle to adopt a Platform based on what he called a "morality in foreign policy" plank. It criticized the giveaway of the Panama Canal, détente with the Soviet Union, and unilateral concessions on nuclear testing. The Helms Platform directly attacked the foreign and defense policies of incumbent President Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger. It was a tremendous victory when the Convention adopted Jesse Helms' Platform. That was the moment when the Republican Party turned away from accommodation of Communist Russia and toward victory over the evil empire. It helped Ronald Reagan to develop a principled foreign policy to run on four years later in 1980, and it showed the country that the majority of Republicans stood solidly behind him in rebuilding the Republican Party based on conservative principles. The 1976 Platform also adopted the goals of the emerging pro-family movement. It called for an end to federal meddling in schools, abolishing the Dept. of Education, and terminating Goals 2000, STW, school-based clinics, and OBE. It called for teaching "chastity until marriage as the expected standard of behavior." And, in this first Convention after Roe v. Wade, the Platform resolved to "seek enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children." By the time the Republican Delegates met in Detroit for the 1980 National Convention, the fact that Ronald Reagan was going to be nominated wasn't big news any more, so the media focused on the Equal Rights Amendment as the hottest Platform issue. Previous platforms had included endorsement of ERA, and the feminists were determined to keep it that way. I was just as determined to take it out because Ronald Reagan had announced his opposition to ERA, and we didn't intend to let him be embarrassed by the feminists on this issue. The StopERAers and the pro-lifers won big. ERA was taken out of the Platform and the Platform again affirmed "support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children." At the 1984 Convention in Dallas, which renominated Ronald Reagan, he offered us a vision of morning in America, reminding us: "Don't give up your ideals, don't compromise. Don't turn to expedience.... We can have that shining city on the hill." At the 1992 Republican Convention in Houston and the 1996 Convention in San Diego, the hottest issue was the attempt by the RINOs (they always call themselves Moderates) to remove the pro-life plank from the Republican Platform. That was when Colleen Parro and I started Republican National Coalition for Life, with the specific goal of retaining the beautiful pro-life plank in the Platform. Why is it so important, and why have we invested so many resources in preserving the pro-life plank in the Republican Platform? The Republican Platform is one of the most important beachheads held by the pro-life movement, perhaps the only important national beachhead, and it would be a terrible setback to abandon it. And it is a beautiful statement: "The unborn child has a fundamental, individual right to life, which cannot be infringed." With the help of many dedicated Texans, we won big in both Conventions. In San Diego, the Platform Committee, which always includes many of our Eagles, stood like the Rock of Gibraltar in writing a splendid and sound Platform of conservative Republican principles on political economic, cultural, life, and national sovereignty issues. Our nominee Bob Dole then insulted the Delegates by announcing to the press, "I haven't read the Platform and I'm not bound by it anyway." The party managers censored out of Doles' campaign the moral, cultural and sovereignty issues, which had been emphasized in the Platform, and Dole lost to Bill Clinton. The Republican Platform adopted in Philadelphia in 2000 is a great Platform that we should use to hold our public officials to support. Let me give you just a few items from it, in addition to our traditional support for the unborn child's right life: • We support the traditional definition of "marriage" as the legal union of one man and one woman.... We do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection in law. • We oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. • We defend constitutional right to keep and bear arms, • We support the recognition of English as the nation's common language.... • We support a national missile defense for reasons of national security; • American troops must never serve under UN command... or be subject to the jurisdiction of an International Criminal Court. •[We support] a total overhaul of the immigration system. The history of the battles over the Republican Platforms teaches us that standing on principles of authentic conservatism and traditional values is the road to victory. Strong principled platforms are worth all the agony you put into writing and getting them adopted. Conservative Republicans don't have to settle for a liberal or a moderate masquerading as a conservative because conservatives have the majority to demand candidates with the right stuff. I believe the voters will back us when we offer a pro-American foreign policy real tax cuts, and support for the Creator-endowed right of every individual to life and liberty. I believe the voters will back us when we articulate a principled opposition to open borders policies that let in terrorists, federal control over classroom curricula and health care, and Clinton's legacy of treaties such as the UN Treaty on Women, the UN Treaty on Rights of the Child, and the Global Warming treaty I agree with Ronald Reagan that God's hand on America is in a very preferential way, and it's our duty to safeguard our magnificent heritage. One way we do this is by writing a Platform that sets the standard for our public officials, and then trying to hold them to it. You and I have inherited a wonderful land of liberty and prosperity Yes, indeed, we have an obligation to defend America. It's up to us to use the mechanisms of self-government to preserve our heritage. The duty falls on grassroots conservatives like you and me to inspire and revive the movement to win for conservative principles.
Check for a web version later at http://texaseagle.org (not available at post time). Are Republican Platforms Worth Fighting For?
Excerpts from Phyllis Schlafly's speech to Texas Eagle Forum's 2002 Banquet, 6/6/02
Here's what I would like to see: "The Republican Party recognizes that an unborn fœtus is a human being worthy of government protection; it further recognizes, however, that while there is substantial consensus exists for restricting abortion in some cases, substantial consensus exists for allowing it in others. To ban abortions in circumstances where a near consensus (or even majority) of people believe they should be legal would not only be politically suicidal, but would also be ineffective as such a ban would be repealed shortly after the next election. Therefore, the party should work to restrict abortions in circumstances where there would be broad public support for such restrictions, and work to build public support for circumstances where it does not exist."
[I'd also perhaps add something about it legitimately being a state issue, AS ARE OTHER FORMS OF HOMICIDE, but it's getting long-winded enough as it is]
As a former liberal, I can attest to the fact that the Democrats have a lot of people convinced that if the Republicans had the chance they'd outlaw all abortions tomorrow. This is obviously a total lie, on many fronts, and yet I have spoken to people who [say they] would otherwise vote Republican, and who generally oppose abortion, but insist that it remain legal in certain circumstances and believe the lie that if Republicans win it wouldn't.
I see nothing wrong with Republicans who oppose all abortion on principle. They should formulate a plan for implementing that principle, however, that will win votes rather than lose them. The current platform on abortion really gives the worst of both worlds: it's politically unsupportable in its present form, causes Republicans to lose votes on the abortion issue even though most Americans are considerably more pro-life than the status quo, compromises party unity (because many politicians know they can't support the platform in its current form and get elected), and yet fails to really pick up "pro-life" votes because politicians are so consistently wishy-washy about it.
If that is a lie, there are no Republicans on FR. :)
The line already has been drawn. Any baby whose head has not yet cleared the birth canal is fair game. If that weren't the case, the reluctance would be quite reasonable. As it is, however, the question is one of accepting an interim measure until something better can be worked out.
Also, we keep thinking we are going to win and actually get a chance to change things...and then even when we pull out a victory, like electing President Bush, we have the fruits of that victory pulled from us by a lying and subconsciously conspiring new media, colluding with lying liberals, complicated by RINOs showing their true side when pressured (especially Jeffords but many others), etc. etc.
The fact is that the vast majority of Americans do not fully support the pro-life platform of the Republican Party--at least not yet. They are substantially more pro-life than the status quo, but aren't willing to forbid abortion in one fell swoop. I can't really blame politicians for not wanting to offend the majority of people who voted for them.
If the platform was EXPLICIT in stating that we are willing to accept small victories that save lives and that no such small victory accepted should be construed as disparaging other protections for the unborn toward which we are all working,...
BINGO. That's exactly what I'd like to see in the platform. then I think that you are right that the platform in that regard would be much more acceptable. However, there are many more aspects of the platform that are routinely ignored by most of the Federally elected Republicans, stuff that's not nearly as controversial as abortion. Maybe they pick one issue as their excuse to ignore the whole, although even if we "fix" that issue for them, they will probably find another excuse to ignore the expectation [that they will support the platform] that they were elected under.
The purpose of the Republican Party Platform is not to be some list of "rules" for Republican politicians. Rather, it is designed to be a list of principled positions which politicians may hold as a reasonably-unified front. Even if not everyone agrees with a particular issue, it's far better to have those who do substantially agree argue the issue from the same position rather than having Republican candidates squabbling needlessly over minutiae.
Right now, the Republicans' party platform on abortion is politically unsupportable. Over 90% of the population believes abortion should be legal in some circumstances, and I doubt if there are any states or districts where that number is below 50% [there certainly aren't very many]. Any politician who states that he will outlaw abortion if he gets a chance is therefore saying that he intends to openly go against the will of the majority of his constituents. Any politician who says such a thing will thus get crucified in the media and trounced at the polls.
Unfortunately, the fact that the platform's position is unsupportable leaves Republicans politicians without any clear principled position they can take. They are thus stuck with having to stake out their own individual positions which will generally be viewed in the worst possible light by people on all sides of the issue; anything they say will be viewed as being nothing more than campaign rhetoric which they'll disregard if/when elected.
To be sure, even if the Republicans wrote a reasonable campaign platform on abortion (along the lines of what I offered), some RINO's would still come out as openly pro-choice. Their position, however, would be a clear anomony if most Republicans stuck to an abortion platform similar to what I wrote. To have a platform position, however, with which almost NO party members stick, is a severe DISunifying influence. If the Republicans can't come up with an abortion platform that at least a half of the party members can't agree on, they should drop the issue from the platform entirely. This should not be necessary, however, if the party can adopt a platform which acknowledges not just where the party wants to go, but also where they are now and how to get from the latter to the former.
If the republicans were to make the types of principaled stands that schlafly recommends, then I believe they'd be the majority party in a few years. People would rally around the GOP. Schlafly is right, every time since 1960 when the republicans turn right in their image they reap political rewards a few years later. Every time they turn their image to the left they get beat up a few years later.
But the will of the voters seems to mean nothing to the leaders of either party.
Regarding abortion, I think the national republican party should instead of trying to pass a constitutional ammendment about abortion simply turn the issue through legislation if possible back to the states. Abortion issues should be decided in each state, in that way if they want to put it on the ballot and have a direct vote they can.
Yeah, but it was Goldwater's 1964 lost that resulted in four years of LBJ.
That depends what exactly what you mean by "abortion remains legal". Many people are adament that a woman be able to--at minimum--receive an abortion if there is no way a woman could give birth to a viable baby without severely jeopardizing her own life (e.g. if a diabetic woman goes into insulin shock at 8 weeks' gestation, a viable birth would be impossible for at least another 8 weeks; bearing the fetus for that much longer may very well kill the mother). You know and I know that such pregnancies represent less than 0.001% of abortions, and that nearly all Republicans would allow them anyway, but liberals have managed to convince a whole lot of people that Republicans would if they could block abortion even in those cases and care nothing about the hundreds (yea right) of women who would die because they couldn't receive an abortion.
As a former liberal, I think I probably see things a bit differently from those who were always conservative. Not because I'm still a liberal, but rather because I understand how liberals' arguments work on people (since they once worked on me). It's very easy for conservatives, especially on a forum like FR, to forget that there really are a whole lot of liberal voters out there, at least some of whom will have to be turned in order for conservatives to win elections.
BTW, one of the great things about FR is that liberal viewpoints are somewhat accepted here (provided the posters are polite, which alas they're often not). While some people try to chase away liberals, I think they are a very important part of the site since they help reflect the way a lot of uninformed voters think. I am reminded of the time I saw Rush Limbaugh appear as a guest on the Donahue show. I was still something of a liberal then, and had seen Rush's own show a couple times and thoroughly disagreed with it. On the Donahue show, however, Rush was confronted with a thoroughly liberal audience and carried himself admirably. He was confronted with all sorts of tough questions, and answered them admirably.
One thing, btw, conservatives should recognize. If a liberal is reading a thread and comes up with any unanswered counter-argument to the author's main point, the liberal is going to believe that that counter-argument blows away the author's arguments. On the other hand, if someone else has raised that counter-argument and a conservative provided a good answer, the liberal reading the thread is apt to regard it with much more credibility.
Always recognize that there are liberal lurkers out there; encourage liberals to post any counter-arguments they want answered. Answering liberal counter-arguments will do far more to promote conservatism than merely seeking that they not be asked.
I agree....starting with the President of the United States.
I agree with your position that a platform with clear conservative principles is an election winner. It is likely that the 94' landslide was made possible by the "Contract with America". So I would like to state that anytime clear conservative principles can be put into a written statement of intent, the party will benefit. So what are we to write for the 02' mid-term's? It should take the form of the earlier "Contract with America" filled with not more than 10 clear and actionable statements of intent. The key word here is actionable. By that I mean take a plank from the platform and take a small achievable step towards it's full implementation. For example in our effort towards full implementation of the 2nd amendment rights, a promise to attempt a repeal of one of the thousands of laws infringing on those rights. I am surprised that the GOP hasn't come up with a "Contract with America 2" it seems that sequels work well in the public's eye. The voters like familiar things and a "Contract with America 2" could give the GOP back control of the senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.