MARYLAND Republicans are in a post-election funk. Despite a record $6 million in the bank and an incumbent governor disliked by much of his own party, they failed to elect the GOP nominee, Ellen R. Sauerbrey. Activists whisper to each other that never again will the stars be so perfectly aligned.
This is wrong -- the day of deliverance will come. But the state GOP must take to heart the lessons it learned from the election -- what the proper role of social conservatism should be within the party, and which groups now outside the GOP should be aggressively courted as allies.
On the national level, social conservatives saw opportunity in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It was the chance they needed to further their agenda on issues like abortion rights. By making Americans feel ashamed to have a baby boomer president with a deeply flawed character, they thought a humbled electorate would reject the culture of limitless freedom that possibly shaped that character. This is why every effort was made to keep President Clinton under the spotlight of humiliation.
It was a logical calculation. The decade of the 1990s, it seemed, was certainly the decade of family values. Even leading Democrats embraced the ideal.
But social conservatives erred in thinking that the concern expressed by parents to undisciplined children and violent TV shows signified an embrace of the entire social conservative agenda. They erred in believing that they were the "silent majority." They are not, and their inflated rhetoric was met with defeat at the polls.
Abortion position
In the Maryland race, Ms. Sauerbrey tried to reassure voters that she would not change state abortion laws. She meant it. But voters lumped her together with national figures in the social conservative movement -- those who pound the lecterns on the nightly talk shows -- and hesitated.
Social conservatives have a permanent home in Maryland's GOP. But they must recognize that they are not the majority, even within their own party. They are only one of many important interest groups. And, for this reason, they must understand that their best offense is defense. Rather than reaching for the reins of the state, they should cut back on their agenda and concentrate on trying to preserve their way of life. Not only will this end fear among the majority, but also it will excite sympathy.
When government tries to adjust the curricula of Christian home schools so that it comports with secular ideas, it is an abuse of state power. When government plays with the nonprofit status of churches and temples to influence the composition of their hierarchies, it is an abuse of state power. When government allows the teen-age daughters of social conservatives to get abortions without informing a parent, it is a violation of family rights and an abuse of state power.
The GOP, in the spirit of tolerance and diversity, should protect social conservatives when the majority secular culture harasses them.
This signifies a moderation of the agenda, but it is not in any way a throwback to liberal Republicanism. Liberal Republicans were often contemptuous of social conservatives. Behind their backs, they called them philistines or crackers.
A new moderate GOP, on the other hand, would value social conservatives and honor their way of life. It would hold them as one example of how a virtuous life can be lived in Maryland. It would protect them without forcing their way of life onto others.
Ms. Sauerbrey had a large gender gap. But simply moderating the GOP position on abortion will not close that gap in the future. In the 1996 Massachusetts Senate race, for example, Republican William Weld favored abortion rights. Yet he lost with a large gender gap.
The problem goes much deeper. Women, especially single mothers of young, are extremely vulnerable. Many such mothers toil in jobs where advancement is hindered by the time they must spend caring for their children. But by not advancing, they remain on the wrong side of the ever-increasing wage gap. The bare necessities of life require them to enter the work force. At the same time, a large portion of their earnings are siphoned off by day care.
To make matters worse, women have lost the intangible protections of a chivalrous culture. Our culture is not kind to women. Gender-neutrality exposes them to countless discourtesies and a ruthless competitiveness.
No poor feminists
Modern feminism does not speak to these ills. The major feminist groups are more concerned with partial-birth abortion and an end to the patriarchal family, not the crisis in public education, flexible work hours and health insurance. This is why many women now refuse to call themselves feminists. Feminism is simply irrelevant to their lives, a play thing for wealthy, liberal women.
But the GOP has also ignored the practical problems that are faced by many women every day. Some reforms to address this groups needs: Changing zoning laws so that single mothers can work at home or fighting unions so that management can offer flexible work schedules. These are consistent with the GOP's economic conservatism.
But the GOP must articulate a kind of feminism that is forward-thinking and practical, one that eases some of the tremendous burdens placed on women. Given the unpopularity of the feminist label at present, the GOP should rush in, do some good and hijack the term.
The second group that the state GOP should aggressively court is African Americans, especially those mired in poverty. For more than three decades, under state Democratic rule, many African Americans living in Baltimore have watched their economic prospects and quality of life decline. And they resent it. Blacks are called upon to help win an election for the Democrats and then afterward are ignored. One day every four years they are treated like kings. The rest of the time they are treated like servants.
The state GOP should actively address the concerns of poor African Americans, and do so with more than just tax cuts and enterprise zones. Actual investment -- yes, money -- will be required, but far more thoughtfully than applied in the current system. At present, the administrators and the caring professionals who tend to the poor get the meat and potatoes while the poor are left with the crumbs. The GOP must reverse these priorities.
GOP suburbanites may resent such investments. But they must be warned that if the situation in Baltimore does not improve and society goes downhill, they will be caught up in the general ruin.
Low- and middle-income African Americans are attracted to the GOP effort to lower taxes and increase choice in education. Ms. Sauerbrey recognized this. But many of them resent the GOP's stated position on affirmative action. While the GOP must stand firm against racial quotas, the party must recognize that many African Americans see affirmative action as the last evaporating fumes of hope. The GOP cannot end affirmative action without putting something very significant in its place.
Finally, the state GOP must become more attuned to concerns about the environment. This is a high priority issue for many moderates. In particular, the GOP must see environmental preservation as an important and honored purpose of government. Given that worldwide, poor economic development is often associated with tremendous pollution, the state GOP should be able to present a coherent environmental plan that is consistent with a strong economy.
Some have argued that the GOP should not have nominated Ms. Sauerbrey for governor, that she was too conservative to win statewide. This is wrong. Ms. Sauerbrey campaigned as a moderate, especially with her efforts in Baltimore, and would have governed as a moderate. But she was hobbled by a legislative record that was forged almost two decades ago, during an era when many of us thought differently. This is why she was not able to take Maryland Republicans to the promised land. But surely she has helped show them the way.
Ronald W. Dworkin, who contributed $4,000 to the Sauerbrey campaign, was Ms. Sauerbrey's health policy adviser. He writes from Baltimore.
Pub Date: 11/10/98