THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, August 11, 1996 TAG: 9608100051
SECTION: DAILY BREAK PAGE: E2 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: BY ANN G. SJOERDSMA
LENGTH: 80 lines
YEA, THOUGH I walk through the valley of the shadow of Republican politics, I shall fear no evil, but I am appalled.
Appalled that a single issue of social policy has torn apart the Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.
Appalled that the democratic compact of agreeing to disagree garners limited respect within the modern GOP.
Appalled that self-serving politicians - regardless of their views - continue to permit abortion to divide this nation.
When does it all end? If it ends when abortion does, then it will never end. Neither a constitutional amendment nor a police state will change that reality.
Last week, moderate and socially conservative Republicans skirmished over the anti-abortion plank in their party's platform, arguing over tolerance. Are they or aren't they? Can Republicans agree to disagree on abortion? That they had to argue settled the point. And (further) alienated many of us looking on.
The result: Presumptive presidential candidate Robert J. Dole, a moderate seeking inclusiveness - and women voters - retreated from his June 12 proposal that the platform ``recognize . . . deeply held and sometimes differing views of issues of personal conscience like abortion and capital punishment.''
Once again, Dole knuckled under. Once again, Dole appeared weak. A ``compromise'' to list rejected abortion-rights amendments in the platform appendix was eventually reached.
Fearing a spill-over of party divisiveness onto the floor of this week's Republican convention, Dole bowed, as his campaign handlers advised him, to the religious right and abandoned his vision of ``personal conscience.'' A tough, inspired Dole had called the issue ``non-negotiable'' in June, but last week the consummate negotiator backslid with nary an ``I protest!'' After weeks of working to narrow his gender gap, he took the politically expedient, woman-unfriendly, reactive approach.
The World War II hero is letting too many foot soldiers call his shots. It will cost him.
I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I've voted for both and grant all people and special-interest groups their voice. But increasingly I regard the in-fighting within the GOP as ugly, as exceeding the bounds of reasonable political discourse. The spirit of debate doesn't really exist. Abortion is being used to foment national divisiveness and alienation. It is harming all of us.
When thinking people can't agree to disagree on grounds of ``personal conscience,'' which is a measure of faith, then what's left of American democracy? What sort of ``sanctity of life'' does such intolerance speak of?
Bob Dole finds himself in a dilemma not of his own making or choosing, but one that he and his campaign have aggravated. Dole wants the GOP platform to be more acceptable to abortion-rights supporters. But even more important, he wants to win his party's nomination and the presidency. His ``handlers'' tell him he needs the religious right to do so. So he bends to that unbending faction's will. He holds on.
But ``holding on'' won't win the election.
Strong, thoughtful leadership, however, might.
When does it all end? It ends when a moderate Republican such as Dole ``falls on his own sword,'' if need be, and resolves to break with extremists who would commandeer the party with a single intractable issue. (If Communists were to do the same within the Democratic Party, nothing less would be expected.) It ends when the nation's founding principles of liberty and secular governance are put into practice.
And if principle isn't enough, it ends with numbers. Dole and his campaign team should assess these: How many women, turned off by Dole's backsliding on abortion, would cast their votes for him if he continued to talk of tolerance? How many moderates - from both major political parties - who might be voting for the Republican-sounding Clinton, would do the same?
Dole need only survive the convention and its majority-anti-abortion delegates. When he does, he should ask himself: If he again reaches out to moderates, thus alienating the religious right, where would these latter voters go? Certainly not to Bill Clinton. Ross Perot is ``pro-choice.'' To Pat Buchanan and a new third party? That, at least, would be an appropriate forum. But many, I suspect, would stay exactly where they are.
The divisiveness that this single issue - viewed by many Americans as strictly personal - has caused our democratic nation is appalling. Agreeing to disagree, when it is in the greater public interest, deserves more respect. And the sooner the better. MEMO: Ann G. Sjoerdsma is a lawyer and book editor of The
Virginian-Pilot. by CNB