A Big Tent?

Earlier this week, when Arlen Specter announced he was switching parties, he referred, in his statement, to his election to the Senate in 1980 as part of Ronald Reagan's "big tent" Republican Party.

But in the nearly three decades that have passed, more and more people have felt they were being pushed out of the big tent. And, today, the "big tent" more closely resembles a pup tent.

Specter's switch seems to be a wake–up call for people like David Frum, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush.

In The Week, Frum offers suggestions for rebuilding the Republican Party.

He starts out by making a perfectly valid point about the diminishing presence of Republican office–holders in the Northeast.

There was a time when places like Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine were GOP strongholds. Vermont and Maine, in fact, were the only two states to vote against Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt all four times he ran for president. But now, in large part because of the intolerance for opposing viewpoints within the Republican Party, it "retains a minimal presence" in that part of the country.

"It's not like we have so many votes that we can afford to throw them away," Frum cautions. "And yet, some Republicans responded to the defection this week of Senator Arlen Specter by saying: 'Good riddance — don't let the door hit you on the way out.' Others say they would prefer a Republican caucus of 30 principled conservatives in the Senate to a less ideologically pure 40–vote, center–right coalition."

Frum advocates a return to the "big tent," recommending that Republicans "stop eating our own" by running conservative challengers against centrist incumbents in party primaries. It has been suggested by many, including Frum, that this was, to a great extent, responsible for Specter's switch to the Democratic Party, and it's hard to argue with that, given the tough challenge Specter faced from the right in his last campaign — and appeared likely to face next year.

Frum also believes the party must "find some way to make internal peace on the abortion issue."

The party's national platform may always oppose abortion, and most of its nominees may be against it as well. A fairly large segment of the public opposes it and probably always will. But an equally large segment of the public recognizes that abortions will happen, and it is preferable for them to be performed by trained medical professionals in sterile conditions.

It is also preferable for young women who are considering the procedure to have the benefit of counseling — all of which supports the wisdom of Bill Clinton's belief that abortion should "safe, legal and rare."

And it makes sense from a political perspective. "By penalizing pro–choice candidates, Republicans are not only making their party increasingly unelectable in the present, they are repelling the very people who might help restore electability in the future," Frum writes.

Republicans aren't the only ones who have had to wrestle with doctrinaire conflicts. When Clinton was first nominated in 1992, Pennsylvania's Gov. Bob Casey was not allowed to speak at the Democratic convention. Casey claimed it was because of his pro–life views. Organizers said it was because he had not publicly endorsed the Clinton–Gore ticket, even though others who had not endorsed the ticket, including other pro–life Democrats, were allowed to speak.

Those speakers, however, did not focus on abortion when giving their remarks. Casey made no secret of his desire to give a minority plank on abortion and claimed he was being censored for his views.

Frum also argues that "politicians have to be allowed some leeway to vote the interests of their constituencies."

Clearly, each state and each region has unique needs and interests.

"I've never heard anyone derided as a 'Republican In Name Only' for opposing the closing of redundant military bases, or for supporting Medicaid reimbursement formulas that favor the South and West at the expense of the Northeast and California, or for favoring lavish FEMA reconstruction projects after hurricanes and tornadoes," Frum writes. "Why not apply equal latitude to other regional concerns?"

Frum says he wants to see the Republicans build a national consensus. "Right now, I fear, the Republican mood is not conducive to party building. It's a mandate for party shrinkage. Our current demand, to paraphrase P.G. Wodehouse, is for 'fewer and better Republicans.' Better is always nice. But in democratic politics, quality is no substitute for quantity."

Frum makes fair points, and they are ones the Republican Party must consider if it wishes to be an active participant in discussions of the national direction.