1988 Ad

National Review, April 10, 1987 by Lisa Schiffren

KEMP'S SURPRISING VICTORY

THE STAKES were higher than usualat the Republican state convention held last month in Lansing, Michigan. Jack Kemp's organization in Michigan, which has been rapped for poor performance in the past, cut a series of deals with Pat Robertson's supporters in order to wrest control of the state party from Vice President Bush's supporters. Kemp's people pulled it off. The question is, Will the deals backfire?

Kemp did poorly in last August'sprecinct elections (the first tier of Michigan's three-tiered delegate-selection process), rounding up less than 20 per cent of the delegate support. In contrast, Robertson and Bush each got 40 to 45 per cent of the delegates. Yet Kemp walked away from this convention with at least eight of 18 district chairmanships, as well as perhaps 29 of the 101 seats on the Republican state committee, the party's rule-making body. Kemp forces managed this under a deal whereby Robertson delegates, most of whom are new to the political process, were told by their leaders to support Kemp district and state committee candidates, most of whom have been around a while, in return for the votes to secure national convention delegates for Robertson and allow a Kemp-Robertson coalition to dominate the convention. Robertson, going in with perhaps 45 per cent of the delegates, walked out of the state convention with at most four district chairmen and forty of the state-committee slots, leaving Bush perhaps six district chairmen and 32 state committeemen.

Both Bush and Kemp forces wooedthe Robertson delegates, highly prized because it is assumed that Robertson will drop out of the race either before the national convention or in the early stages of it. As one Kempie said, "His delegates will have to vote for someone.'

In the weeks leading up to the stateconvention, the deal-making intensified. Clark Durant, chairman of Kemp's Michigan Opportunity Society (MOS), led the effort. He and his men were eager to forge what they called a "conservative alternative' to Bush, claiming a "natural philosophical alliance' between their supporters and Robertson's. Peter Secchia, Bush's cochairman in Michigan, characterized the alliance as a "marriage of convenience.' "The evangelical Christian movement is being manipulated by a small minority of people in the Kemp campaign,' Secchia warned darkly. "The Kemp people are playing hardball. These are small groups of people plotting to abuse activists. They keep the issues that the Freedom Council cares about, like school-based sex clinics and condom advertising, all stirred up to keep them active, while they put their own guys in front.'

The arrangement offered advantagesfor both Kemp and Robertson. Kemp's goal in Michigan is to keep Bush from taking the state, so that he doesn't pick up too much momentum before the campaign swings into high gear in Iowa and New Hampshire. "The Kemp organization is very impressive in New Hampshire, and he will do very well there,' says Michael Legg, a Kemp supporter who chairs Michigan's 2nd District. "We just want to beat Bush in Michigan. It doesn't matter if Robertson or Kemp takes Michigan, and I'm sure they [Robertson supporters] feel the same way.'

For its part, the Robertson campaignhoped to turn pluralities Robertson had in seven districts into majorities, so that Robertson and Kemp could divvy up the national delegates from those districts next year. David Walters, director of Robertson's MCFF (Michigan Committee for Freedom), sees the Kemp-Robertson alliance as a natural. "Bush has done a fine job, but Kemp and Robertson are further to the right, as are the grass-roots voters,' explains Walters. "Our delegates work with other delegates to elect people with the same goals to county and district positions.'

ONE KEMP candidate for a districtchairmanship speculated that what the Robertson campaign really wants is credibility. "The MCFF people are doing this at least partly because they are afraid of a backlash against the fundamentalist Christian Right if they look too strong,' he said. "They don't want to threaten the party regulars by taking over all their positions. Many of the Kemp people are old-timers in the party, and we share a bottom-line conservatism.'

Michael Legg described the Robertsonmotivation bluntly: "They [the Robertson people] don't care about the district chairs now. They'll call in their chips a year from now. They care about the national delegates. Probably we'll send two Robertson delegates to the convention for every Kemp one we send. I know that going in.'

There are some risks for Kemp inforging an alliance with Robertson's people, and the Bush campaign has delighted in pointing them out. The candidate who wins the evangelical Right gets a large and enthusiastic following, but he may also alienate moderate Republicans as well as other important segments of the Reagan coalition--especially blue-collar Catholics and, even more importantly, yuppies.

Indeed, there has been a fierce debatewithin the Kemp national organization over whether Kemp should tailor his message more toward activists from the religious Right or more toward the yuppie side. Michigan seemed to represent a tilt toward the former. The issue that eventually dominated the state convention was school-based clinics that dispense contraceptives. That prompted a dire warning from Secchia: "When we become known as the anti-sex, anti-condom, you-can-only-do-it-lying-down party, you remember who did it, and who brought these people in.' Some Michigan Republicans say they fear the Kemp campaign's shenanigans will split the party, harming other GOP candidates in Michigan. On the other hand, as one Kemp operative argued: "If Jack wins the nomination, he'll win the state. No one is going to care about an internal deal from back in early 1987.'