Stop beating around the Bush

National Review, Nov 6, 1987 by Robert K. Dornan

Stop Beating Around the Bush

ONE AFTERNOON in January of 1986, I arrived at the White House for a meeting with the President, as a member of a bi-partisan group of 11 congressmen assembled to plot a strategy for getting aid to the Nicaraguan Democratic Resistance. Congressman Jack Kemp, my colleague and good friend, was already in the Cabinet Room, trying the President's chair on for size, just as I and many others have done over the years. President Reagan wasn't due for ten more minutes, so I knew this was the right opportunity to tell Jack about a decision I had made. I felt uneasy and a bit sad at what I had to say.

"Jack,' I began, "I believe that one day you will be sitting in that chair; but I don't think it will be in 1989. I want you to know that I've endorsed George Bush for President.' Momentarily taken aback, Jack said quickly: "Bobby, don't do this, they'll just use you. They're not really conservatives like us. Don't do it.' But it was already done. About a month earlier, on December 17, 1985, in the Oval Office, I had privately told a very pleased President of my decision to go with his Veep.

Is Jack Kemp right when he says George Bush is not really a conservative? Can a movement conservative such as Bob Dornan--a 1968, '76, '80, and '84 Reagan delegate, an old-time Buckley-Goldwater Republican, the congressman that leftists in the House most love to hate-- honestly find happiness with George Bush?

Well, it is nearly two years since I made the decision to endorse the Vice President, and I have no regrets. In fact, I am more convinced than ever that George Bush has the right stuff. Having spent time with him abroad, in Washington, and around the country, I have come to know George Bush as intelligent, decisive, indefatigable, committed, very good-humored, and, yes, conservative. I don't agree with George on every detail of public policy, but then I don't always agree with other conservatives, not even with favorites like Pat Buchanan or Bill Buckley (remember the Panama Canal!). Conservatives, after all, are allowed to have differences of opinion, and it is this constant internal debate that gives us the edge in waging the war of ideas.

George Bush may not be the ideal conservative candidate, but who out there is? Not Jack Kemp, who has angered many conservatives with his overtures to organized labor. Not Bob Dole, whose history indicates a willingness to accept tax increases. Not even Pat Robertson, who, like Jesse Jackson, carries the peculiar baggage of having given up the ministry for politics when the nation is short on good ministers and long on eager presidential candidates. What of Pete du Pont? Well, he has brought some superb conservative ideas to the campaign, but he is really a recent convert. Alexander Haig? Solid on defense and foreign affairs but not nearly enough economic or social-policy experience.

Do not misunderstand me. The GOP is very lucky to have such a fine field of conservative candidates, and I could support any of them in good conscience. But the stakes in this election--the future of the political realignment launched by Ronald Reagan--are high, and we must choose the conservative candidate most likely to carry the day.

If the gains of the Reagan era are to be consolidated, the Republican nominee must be someone capable of holding together the somewhat disparate coalition that Reagan forged--conservative Democrats, blue-collar workers, independent moderates, GOP regulars, movement conservatives, and what I call "conservatarians,' or conservatives with a libertarian streak (you know the type--generally younger people who support lower taxes and a strong national defense, but have little or no interest in social issues).

As a veteran of some very difficult campaigns, I appreciate the enthusiasm many supply-siders feel for a Jack Kemp victory, as expressed by Jude Wanniski in the August 14 NATIONAL REVIEW. And with several months and many X factors to go, Kemp, Dole, du Pont, Haig, or Robertson could indeed emerge the victor. However, each of these conservative candidates appeals only to limited, though influential, segments of the conservative movement. Generally speaking, Kemp appeals to supply-siders and populists; Dole to pragmatic centrists; Robertson to traditional fundamentalists; Haig to military and foreign-affairs specialists; du Pont to government-reform conservatives.

There is no obvious heir to the mantle of Reagan, no Taft or Goldwater to rally around. However, I believe George Bush represents the Republican Party's best hope for keeping that Reagan coalition together. Given his loyal service as Vice President, along with his unique record of broad government experience, consistent party support, and down-the-line conservative views, he is the logical choice.

Why, then, are some conservatives so hesitant to jump aboard the Bush bandwagon? Some complain that Bush lacks the passion that they have grown accustomed to seeing in conservative leaders. Others question the depth of his commitment to conservative principles. Still others, quite unfairly, attempt to demean him personally, belittling his earnest manner of speech, or hurling irrelevant epithets like "preppie' (a term they never apply to fellow Yalie William F. Buckley Jr.).