The Vital Republican Center

OLDWICK, N.J. — On May 5, 1996, when I was halfway through my first term as governor of New Jersey, there was a picture of me on the cover of this newspaper's Sunday magazine, accompanied by the headline, "It's My Party Too." I liked that message so much, I had it framed and hung it in my office in Trenton and, later, Washington. To moderate Republicans like me, that headline proclaimed our belief that there was still room for us in the party of Lincoln.

Now, almost eight years later, many moderate Republicans feel even less certain of their place in the party. When President Bush, arguably one of the more conservative presidents in recent history, is under attack from the right wing of the party for his proposal regarding immigration and migrant workers, is it any wonder moderates feel out of sync?

It doesn't seem to matter to conservatives that moderates share their views on the vast majority of those bedrock principles that have always been the foundation of Republicanism: smaller government, the power of free markets, a strong national defense. Because we disagree on a few issues, most notably a woman's right to choose, many conservatives act as if they wish we moderates would just disappear.

This phenomenon is not unique to Republicans. Many moderate Democrats also feel alienated from their party; Senator Zell Miller of Georgia has recently written a book about it. Party estrangement is, sadly, bipartisan, and it is destroying American politics.

Some might ask why Republicans should be concerned about broadening their appeal to moderate voters; many in the G.O.P. believe it already is the majority party. And it is true that we have done a better job than the Democrats of winning the votes of a larger number of the shrinking percentage of voters who actually go to the polls.

But that doesn't mean Republicans have a lock on the electorate. We control Congress and the presidency, but a switch of fewer than 21,000 votes in two states in the 2002 elections would have denied Republicans control of the Senate. Had Al Gore been able to carry his home state, Tennessee, in 2000, today he'd be preparing for his own re-election campaign.

A true majority party should not be in such a potentially precarious position. We find ourselves in this situation in part because we too often follow the advice of political consultants to appeal not to a majority of the electorate but only to the most motivated voters — those with the most zealous, ideological beliefs. Both parties now concentrate largely on turning out greater numbers of their most fervent supporters.

As a result, candidates tailor their appeals to those who already agree with them. The inevitable outcome is rhetoric that precludes a sensible discussion of issues. Those with the most shrill voices are increasingly dominating our political discourse.

This strategy has also colored public policy. When I was administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, one of my first acts was to take a second look at a federal regulation limiting the level of arsenic in drinking water. There was no question the regulation as it then stood would be made more strict. The issue was whether the limit set by the previous administration, which had yet to take effect, had gone too far. I also wanted to make sure the regulation was based on sound science and a thorough cost analysis.

But the outcry from Democrats and the environmental lobby was mind-boggling. It set a tone that made sensible discussion of important questions almost impossible. In the end, after careful study, we allowed the stricter regulation to take effect.

Unfortunately, genuine advances in environmental protection were frequently lost amid extremist rhetoric. When the E.P.A. proposed a rule to reduce pollution from the thousands of unregulated diesel engines — tractors, backhoes, and other equipment — the National Resources Defense Council hailed it as "the most significant public health proposal in decades."

Within days, however, that changed. Other environmental groups expressed dismay that any environmentalist would say something so positive about the administration. Eventually the council wrote us a letter asking that we stop using that comment because it felt there could have been other environmental proposals that might have been more important to public health.

I also often had to battle extremists within my own party. I remember a Republican leader in Congress telling me not to use the word "balance" when talking about environmental policy — it implied that we were giving too much away to the environmentalists. Moderate voters who are concerned about the environment were often left frustrated.

Some Republican consultants say that since we're not going to win the votes of environmentalists anyway, we needn't worry about what they think. Yet there are plenty of voters who care about the environment, even if it's not the first thing they mention in polls. Politics that writes off large parts of the electorate is both counterproductive and short-sighted. Yet both parties seem determined to pursue that course.

What too many Republican strategists seem to have learned from the 2000 election is that the states which voted for Al Gore — the entire West Coast, most of the Northeast, much of the Upper Midwest — aren't worth fighting for. It's the wrong lesson.

Of the 20 states that President Bush lost in the 2000 election, 15 either had then, or have since elected, a Republican governor. Of those governors, almost every one can fairly be described as a moderate Republican: George Pataki in New York, Linda Lingle in Hawaii, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, to name just three. In addition, polls show that in states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maine, voters are evenly split in their party affiliation.

Moderates can find much to like in this president; the Republican Party need only show it values their support. President Bush's stance on issues like education, health care and the environment will resonate with moderates. If even half the states that have elected moderate Republican governors in recent years were added to what the president won in 2000, he would be re-elected in a landslide. If that happens, then Republicans from every part of the country, both moderate and conservative, could finally proclaim that the G.O.P. truly is their party, too.

Christie Whitman, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 2001 to 2003, is writing a book about the place of moderates in the Republican Party.

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
60	Netherlands	20.00	1	20.00	12	1.67

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

The moderates in the New Jersey Republican party are already atarting to try to discredit Bret Schundler. They think Schundler can't win in New Jersey because of his position on abortion, but they know that the people most likely to vote in the primary are conservative pro life Republicans.

Expect to see the rhetoric heat up.

On May 5, 1996, when I was halfway through my first term as governor of New Jersey, there was a picture of me on the cover of this newspaper's Sunday magazine, accompanied by the headline, "It's My Party Too." I liked that message so much, I had it framed and hung it in my office in Trenton and, later, Washington.

If the NY Times is praising you, Christie, maybe it's time to re-evaluate what you're doing.

What's really funny is that these people are actively working to deny conservatives any say in the GOP, and then they act like the wounded party. Take, for example, Olympia Snowe, John Warner, and others, and the ways they have deliberately hurt conservatives without punishment.

They throw stones, then bandage themselves up.

Politics that writes off large parts of the electorate is both counterproductive and short-sighted. Yet both parties seem determined to pursue that course.

My gosh, people who believe in something? I can't believe it!

Moderates feel taken for granted? I am laughing my arse off.

It doesn't get more moderate than this, at least I hope.

Oh,No I loved the years in Texas when the general election was virtually over at the end of the democratic primary.I yearn to go back to 130yrs of democratic rule in the house.I want to have my nose against the window yearning to have a Republican represent me.Sure..

I didn't agree with everything my Republican stood for but I sure liked him better than the dem alternative.Now we are in the majority in Texas and next election may get proportional representation in the Congress.

If one loves the purity of being in the minority,perhaps one should join the Green Party,Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party.

I would rather lose 10,000 times with Bret Schundler than win once with Christine Todd Whitman.

If you think that's a dumb thing to say, just look at what happens to the party in states where party leaders turn to the left. Look at New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Washington, Maine. In these states, the party is either dead or about to die, thanks to its liberal leaders.

Compare these to New Hampshire, Florida, Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. These are not innately conservative states, but the great conservative leaders they have are exciting people, winning people over with their ideas, and winning elections. That's how you expand your voter base--ideas.

That's why Clinton killed the Democrats, because he had none.

The issue was whether the limit set by the previous administration, which had yet to take effect, had gone too far. I also wanted to make sure the regulation was based on sound science and a thorough cost analysis.

But the outcry from Democrats and the environmental lobby was mind-boggling. It set a tone that made sensible discussion of important questions almost impossible.

There are honest environmentalists, but it is also true that environmentalism is a natural home for knee-jerk anticapitalism.

In the end, after careful study, we allowed the stricter regulation to take effect.

"After careful study" you greased the squeaky wheel. It is possible for the outsider to tell whether that squeaky wheel affected the decision, exactly how?
And yet you presume to tell the conservative not to squeak!

Christine Whitman claims the last election resulted in a bunch of moderate Republicans being elected. Our governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, is to the right of President Bush on spending and taxes. That makes him a moderate to Whitman, right? LMAO. Republican moderates are actually liberals who don't like to admit they are liberals and end up agreeing with the Democrats cause they have no real principles. Which is why voters in Whitman's New Jersey wiped out the moderate GOP there. Who needs two liberal parties when you've got one? The only way Republicans will win is if they win on principle. If we try to copy the Democrats, we're headed for the political graveyard of history. Take Whitman's analysis in the New York Times with a grain of salt.

In New York, the Party is quite strong. Bloomberg is now switching to tax cuts. If he cuts fast enough, he may be safely re-elected. Pataki made a strong stand against raising taxes.

Our Party does have a problem with the abortion issue. I pray, pray for the day when President Bush can appoint three solid conservatives to the bench and end this question for a generation. Then, it would become a personal issue.

Schundler didn't win because he had no control of his mouth. I hope he learns his lesson for the next time.

The center always dictates the outcome of elections. Clinton captured the center in '92 and '96. Bush split it with Gore in '00. The Democrats are now running off the cliff on the left side of the spectrum, which means that the center will largely gravitate toward Bush, and perhaps the GOP, this election. But, then, I think the "center" has shifted right over the past 20 years, so what wins is a center/right cluster of issues.

In New York, the Party is quite strong. Bloomberg is now switching to tax cuts. If he cuts fast enough, he may be safely re-elected.

Only gerrymandering has saved the State Senate majority. The legislative agenda is decidedly left-wing and further left-wing. Spitzer is a shoo-in for governor in 2006, whether Pataki runs or not, and he probably won't for just that reason. They can't find a credible candidate to challenge freshman Chuck Schumer this year. Felix Grucci's old district in Suffolk is probably permanently lost. Lazio's old district is now solid Democrat. Barring a nuclear explosion in New York City, Bush has absolutely no hope of carrying the state, and even then it would be close, given the trend upstate.

The only GOP victory on the horizon is a possible 2006 defeat of Hillary. And that's only if Rudy runs, and that's only because it's Rudy and it's Hillary, and it will be close anyway.

And if you think Bloomberg is getting re-elected, I know of a bridge up there that would be a great location to buy in advance, for celebrating his victory. I don't think he'll even survive a primary, not even if he switches parties.

Well, polling shows that Pataki would clobber Spitzer. Not only would Pataki easily outraise Spitzer, but there is no way anyone can crack Pataki's solid numbers in the suburbs and the upstate.

Schumer had too much money to be defeated. Only a Wall Street Exec. could have competed with his warchest. Peter King might have done well, but Schumer is quite a hard worker unlike Hillary. Rudy has a free pass to any political office he wants, no matter who currently holds it.

From what I hear, we have a great candidate in the Hempstead district. In Grucci's district, we have a good candidate running to take it back. So add two seats to the GOP column.

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.