Lamar? Come on! - Lamar Alexander's implausible Republican appeal

National Review, March 11, 1996 by Rich Lowry, Ramesh Ponnuru

When Lamar Alexander was still an asterisk in most polls he scored an inside-Washington victory. Socialite and conservative activist Arianna Huffington, taken by recent Alexander speeches, hosted two meetings in December for the candidate and several 'compassion conservatives,' including Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, welfare guru Marvin Olasky, and Bradley Foundation head Michael Joyce. They discussed how to make 'civil society' themes a bigger part of Alexander's campaign. A few weeks later, in a speech to the Heritage Foundation -- written with extensive help from Mrs. Huffington -- Alexander unveiled his 'citizenship agenda for a rising, shining America.'

It was music to the ears of Huffington and Co. Over the last few years they have been urging a restoration of 'civil society' -- the rich array of institutions like churches, schools, families, and even trade unions that mediate between the individual and the state -- as the key to alleviating the nation's social problems. Cutting government, in their view, is not enough for the country or the GOP. So when Alexander expanded on a thoughtful, Burkean message of civic revival, this slice of the conservative intelligentsia swooned.

'There's probably nobody in the race who is more committed to devolution than Lamar Alexander,' says Civil Society Project director Don Eberly. 'He really understands where the country is going, which is to really move resources downward and outward.' Agrees Bradley Foundation head Michael Joyce: 'When he says for example that we need more from ourselves and less from government, I think he authentically believes that.' Along with this appreciation of Alexander's message goes a calculation that he can win. 'Dole would almost certainly lose,' maintains Huffington. 'Alexander can expose Clinton [in the debates]. He can expose him on these issues of the civil society, compassion. Because he can . . . expose the fact that there has never been any action that has followed the rhetoric.'

As Alexander's candidacy ceases to be a parlor game, these assumptions deserve closer scrutiny. It is not at all clear that Alexander would make the strongest challenger to Bill Clinton. His moderation may appeal to primary voters turned off by their other choices, but it may not excite the conservative base or present voters with a stark choice in November. The 'outsider' appeal of his plaid-shirt populism is tenuous, especially given his Midas Touch as an investor. Finally, the 'civil society' agenda, while laudable in many respects, has both political and substantive drawbacks. If the goal is to complete and deepen a Republican realignment, Lamar! is a risky proposition.

Alexander's assets as a candidate are undeniable. By all accounts he is an effective and focused manager with a smart campaign staff. His platform is more detailed than Dole's, more realistic than Forbes's, and less controversial than Buchanan's. Younger and more telegenic than Bob Dole, Alexander could easily match the energy and lip-biting empathy of President Clinton. Alexander has the gift for which he once praised his moderate Tennessee mentor Howard Baker: being intensely ambitious without showing it.

But none of this means that his campaign's ritual incantation 'A-B-C: Alexander Beats Clinton,' is necessarily true. In November, he would have to mobilize the party's base while reaching out to independents and conservative Democrats. Alexander surely can attract independents. But he would likely have trouble activating the base and reaching out to Reagan Democrats, because both depend on a harder-edged social conservatism than Alexander has been unwilling to offer. For example, on crime and welfare -- issues key to building Republican majorities -- his devolutionist positions imply agnosticism over policy specifics.

A more specific problem is his lack of appeal to religious conservatives. For many of them abortion is a litmus test, and Alexander flunks. He says that states, not the federal government, should restrict abortion. It would be a defensible proposal, except that Alexander also says he would not push to overturn Roe v. Wade, which prevents states from enacting major restrictions. 'He either doesn't understand the process or he's trying to pull the wool over people's eyes,' says Carol Long, director of the National Right to Life Committee's PAC. Alexander's biggest selling point for social conservatives is that Bill Bennett has come on board as his campaign's co-chair. If Alexander were the nominee, many social conservatives would stay home on election day.

Nominating Alexander would also blur distinctions between the parties in November. As has often been noted, his political pedigree is remarkably similar to Bill Clinton's. Both were governors of Southern states with cozy elites. Both were widely touted as models of activist, good-government centrism. Both picked high-profile fights with the teachers' unions. And as Alexander's Republican rivals are quick to note, both raised taxes. Moreover, Clinton and Alexander also have similar personas. Both are from the moderate wings of their parties. Both men project empathetic, reasonable, energetic images. The implied promise is that troublesome conflicts and divisive issues will yield to their soothing touch. They even share the same citizenship rhetoric. This year's State of the Union speech was full of references to the need for greater civic involvement. When Clintonites say they consider Alexander their strongest possible opponent are they paying themselves a compliment?