
DATE: Sunday, November 9, 1997              TAG: 9711050085

SECTION: COMMENTARY              PAGE: J1   EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Interview

                                            LENGTH:  155 lines

OH, ARIANNA! YOU CAN'T SAY THAT ABOUT THE GOP...CAN YOU?

Arianna Huffington wraps a conservative punch in a velvet glove.

As a political analyst, author, columnist, lecturer and broadcaster, she is a constant source of agitation for a rebirth of the Republican Party as a political movement that puts as much emphasis on social conscience as it does on fiscal responsibility.

Her seventh book, Greetings from the Lincoln Bedroom, will be published in March. ``It's political satire,'' she said, ``which is the only way we can approach politics these days.''

Huffington will speak Thursday at Old Dominion University as part of the President's Lecture Series. She and Commentary editor Dave Addis discussed the current state of the conservative movement in a telephone conversation last week. Here's what was said:

Q: You are a leading advocate for the cause of ``compassionate conservatism,'' for erasing the image of conservatives as being ``heartless,'' particularly on issues like health care and welfare. Can you explain, in a nutshell, how and why that image persists?

A: Because, unfortunately, the Republican Party since it has taken power has not really put forward the kind of measures and has not used the bully pulpit to promote community solutions, solutions to problems. And I think there's been a kind of bipartisan betrayal, where both parties have ignored the worst problems we're facing. Through the last election and since then, there has been very little attention paid to the problems of the inner cities, violence, gangs, millions of children who go to schools where they are not safe to learn.

You know, we're really becoming two nations. And the concerns that the two parties are focusing on are the concerns of the first nation, which is enjoying unprecedented prosperity, a booming stock market despite this last upset. All these things do not touch a large percentage of America. My concern with our political system at the moment is that the two political parties have really ignored those problems for awhile now.

Q: You posed a question in a column a few months ago: ``Is the conservative movement going to be defined by the social Darwinism and carping small-mindedness of (Rush) Limbaugh and the Leave Us Alone Coalition, or by the generous civic-mindedness that was central to America's founding?'' Who do you think is winning that philosophical struggle within the conservative movement?

A: Well, if you're going to judge in terms of action, let's look at some of what has happened legislatively in the last few months. We had a $50 billion tax write-off for tobacco - and I know we're talking to Virginia (laughs), but I find it absolutely unprecedented that a government would allow such a clear sort of payoff for special interests to get us to a balanced budget.

We have not brought to the table any of the important initiatives that would help those most in need, like the charitable tax credit, like scholarships for inner-city kids to go to school . . . I don't see those on the front burner. Instead we see the balanced budget, which I think is really being balanced by the economy.

Q: There are some very strong voices on the party's right wing who believe that the GOP's leaders already are too ``squishy'' on social issues. In fact, they blame that lack of backbone, in varying degrees, for Bill Clinton's two victories. How can you prove them wrong?

A: Well, I think Clinton's victory was totally elementary. Look, he was running against Bob Dole, who was completely unelectable. The Republican Party nominated Bob Dole because it is such a royalist, hierarchical party that really believes somehow that you elect people because it's their turn.

Q: Then you don't think the fact that Clinton won really settles the philosophical issue?

A: I think the fact that Clinton won proves two things: One, as I say, he ran against an opponent who was easily defeatable. And the other is that the Republican Party abandoned the intellectual debate. They stopped really at the antigovernment rhetoric, and that's never sufficient.

Q: What do you think are significant actions that the Republican Party can take to erase the stigma that it's the party of the greedy and the heartless?

A: I think two things, some are proactive and they involve putting some of the legislation I mentioned on the front burner. And some involve what they should not be doing. They should not be giving more favors to the special interests, they should really target what I call corporate welfare. Some are proactive, but they can help themselves a lot if they avoid doing some things.

Q: Sunday, on ``Meet the Press,'' both Trent Lott (the Senate majority leader) and Newt Gingrich (the Speaker of the House) pretty much confirmed that they were fiddling with the idea of running for president. Would either of them fit your prescription for a Republican leader who can enrich the party's reputation and still win the White House?

A: (Laughs) Is this supposed to be a funny question? Should I stop laughing now, or wait?

Look, I have written more negative columns against Newt Gingrich as the leader of the Republican Party - I've just written one today in fact. But basically I think if the Republican Party wants to resurrect itself, it needs to change leadership. Because, I mean, you saw him on ``Meet the Press.'' He has lost his compass.

I used to be a great admirer of Gingrich's. I'm speaking as somebody who feels very let down by the way he did not live up to, for example, that great speech he gave when he first was elected Speaker. Remember that? It was an inspiring speech, full of things that he never did. I mean there was this great line in that speech saying that the greatest moral imperative is not to balance the budget but to deal with the problems of poverty in America. Remember that? What happened? Why? Here was the Speaker of the House, who had this great power to make some of these things happen. And he has completely ignored them.

Now, Trent Lott is a charming man, incredibly charming, he has a southern ability to really connect with people. But, nevertheless, I don't think he's really provided the kind of leadership that the party is longing for.

And, no, (laughing), I don't have a candidate to offer.

Q: Here in Virginia, the promise to kill an unpopular tax on automobiles is credited, almost exclusively, with what looks to be a runaway victory for the Republican, Jim Gilmore, in the governor's race. But the fallout from a major tax cut in New Jersey has just about trashed Gov. Christine Todd Whitman's political career. With outcomes like this, what's a good conservative to do?

A: (Laughs). Well, first of all it's amazing that the entire Virginia election has been boiled down to one tax. And in terms of Gov. Whitman, I think we're seeing that she was really immensely overrated as a national political figure. . . . Her veto of the ban on partial birth abortion, I think, really alienated people. I'm pro-choice myself, but I'm against this partial-birth abortion, and polls show 70 percent of people are against it. She really misread that.

Q: You once wrote that ``public distrust of our elected officials has become so pervasive that representative democracy itself may be at risk,'' and that ``unless we stop politicians from lying to the public, trust in government may be destroyed.'' Short of strapping a polygraph machine to every politician - which, if I remember correctly, is what you suggested - how exactly does the public go about getting its representatives to stop fibbing all the time?

A: Two ways: First of all is the way that a lot of people are doing it, which concerns me, is that they tune out. A lot of people are either tuning out or simply not even voting.

The more positive way is to just act, ourselves, as a kind of B.S. barometer, to basically let them know we know - by writing, by e-mailing, by calling, by any means at our disposal, to let them know when what they are saying is not believable. And to vote them out! I mean, people should stop voting for their incumbents if they have not lived up to their commitments and promises.

And the media have a responsibility to filter a lot of these things out. . story. It should not be hidden (on inside pages.)

We should expect more from our politicians and from members of the media. I think what has happened with a lot of us is we've mostly given up. OK, politicians lie, we expect it so much that we don't even comment on it. I think we should keep challenging it, a thousand times a day. Because to give up, I think, that's kind of the worst thing that can happen. ILLUSTRATION: Color photo

KARIN COOPER/UPI

Drawing

KERRY WAGHORN/Los Angeles Times Syndicate

Graphic

WANNA GO?

Who: Political analyst Arianna Huffington

What: ODU President's Lecture Series

When: Thursday, 8 p.m

Where: North Cafeteria, Webb University Center

How much: Free and open to the public

Tell me more: For details, call 683-3100