Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, June 16, 1993 TAG: 9308260243
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MARK J. ROZELL
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The point has been made: the Republicans nominated the most conservative ticket imaginable with a lieutenant gubernatorial candidate, Michael Farris, who has been cited by opponents as proof positive that the party is controlled by extremists.
Certainly the behavior of a good many delegates to the Republican convention seems to confirm that devastating charge. Many delegates booed and heckled speakers calling for pragmatism and moderation. Some hurled ice at the speakers' podium. Supporters of Farris treated the defeated candidate for lieutenant governor, Bobbie Kilberg - a woman who has served Republican presidents since Gerald Ford - with such hostility, she is considering withholding support for her own party's nominee.
But nothing beats this: Kilberg had the endorsement of former Arizona senator, ``Mr. Conservative,'' Barry Goldwater. Farris' campaign countered with a letter to delegates suggesting that Goldwater's support for her was a matter of dishonor because the former senator is pro-choice and his conviction supporting the ultimate liberty of the individual applies to homosexuals.
The letter implied that ``Mr. Conservative'' himself should not be considered a member in good standing in the conservative movement. I know of no other major Republican Party event where a good many participants have denounced Barry Goldwater as not sufficiently conservative!
How completely did Farris delegates dominate this convention? I'll give a personal example:
Two years ago I interviewed Northern Virginia businessman Earle Williams for a magazine article I was writing about him. He forcefully expressed the conviction that the Republican Party of Virginia could win elections only if it moved back to its traditional roots by emphasizing such issues as economic development, jobs, educational opportunity and transportation.
He further stated that the emphasis by many candidates on divisive social issues had been detrimental to party fortunes and that Republicans had to think more pragmatically about winning elections. He decried the approach of those who emphasize single-issue politics and advocate litmus-tests on such complex issues as abortion.
By the time of the Richmond convention, Williams was parroting much of the Farris agenda in an attempt to win over Farris convention delegates. Williams' convention speech was laced with home-schooling and ``pro-family'' references carefully calculated to appeal to Farris' people. The man whose vision of pragmatism and moderation probably represented the party's best chance of victory in November had been reduced to pandering to ideologues with narrow-based agendas.
The other unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate, Clinton Miller, left this convention with the most dignity (and least votes). In fact, if concession awards could be offered at political conventions, the following would be granted to Clinton Miller: best convention speech, best video, best song, best hospitality suite, best chance of winning in November, least votes for governor.
The Republican dilemma now is this: how to win moderate votes in November without alienating Farris's supporters. It won't be easy. The best chance for gubernatorial nominee George Allen seems to be to convey, as subtly as possible, that George Allen is not Mike Farris.
Allen's recent statement extolling the ``diversity'' of the Republican nominees for statewide office was a good maneuver. Now he needs to keep the focus on economic issues, the popular theme of ``change,'' Mary Sue Terry's mixed record as attorney general, as well as the failings and perceived failings of Democratic administrations in Richmond and Washington.
\ Mark J. Rozell is associate professor of political science at Mary Washington College.
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB