![]() | ![]() |
| Home Latest Archive Search | |
GOP Brush Fires Part 3
Atwater's Legacy Exposes GOP Vulnerabilities
by David J. Gonzo
Saturday, Feb. 19, 2000 (AmpolNS) -- New York -- Since when, you ask, is the South Carolina Republican Primary such a big deal? If you exclusively relied on cable news channels for your view of the world, you might be led to think that the very fate of Western Civilization hinged on today's results.
Even the nation's major newspapers have gone overboard covering this story.
Now, the obvious and easy answer is that this time around, we are seeing a very high-stakes South Carolina primary race; if Bush fails to win, it's safe to say that he's probably toast on a stick.
But the fact is, not too long ago this race used to be about as important as the primary in the not-so-great state of Delaware, where the wacky DuPont clan lords over business and political affairs -- that is, when they're not obsessing over amateur wrestling, launching hapless political campaigns (remember "Pete" DuPont?), and engaging in other bizarre behavior that may well be the result of overexposure to the many chemicals manufactured by the company that bears their name.
The South Carolina race was a trivial exercise -- until Lee Atwater decided to change things.
Atwater saw the South Carolina GOP Primary as a way to consolidate support for conservative candidates and to promote the cultural and political conservative agenda -- and so he made the race a "big deal" within the party during his tenure as top Republican. It's not just that South Carolina Republicans tend to be very hard-right -- too many of them can barely conceal their penchant toward cultural, religious and racial intolerance. Anyone who watched the first South Carolina GOP debate will remember that the most prominent participant in that event was the audience -- loud, obnoxious, hooting and hollering at every "hot-button" issue which rubbed them the wrong way, from removing the treasonous Confederate flag from their state house to any mention of the name "Clinton."
But poor ol' Lee is probably spinning in his grave over the goings-on in Carolina this time around.
The Great Anointed Son of the very man his South Carolina strategy helped propel into the White House got his butt kicked in New Hampshire by insurgent John McCain. That man, George "Shrubya" Bush, kicked off the South Carolina leg of his campaign wuth the "requisite" stop at the racist, Christian-neo-fascist Bob Jones University in an effort to pander to the evangelo-GOP "hardcores" -- but it seemed to have little effect, and in fact hurt his image nationally. And while McCain ignored that chapter of the Atwater rulebook (kiss the Christian Right's... er, ring and play up the fact that he was not invited to the school), he turned another tactic upside-down, very publicly pulling "all" of his "negative" ads after he had memorably compared Bush with Clinton in his highest-profile attack on His Anointedness.
Bush reacted by suddenly acting assertive, tough, angry.
The overall result may not have been a complete success for Bush, who looks to have gotten a short-term bump. Some perceive this as a move by McCain to make Bush look defensive in his anger and outrage. Many agree that Bush's "how dare you" reaction was exactly the wrong way to handle the situation. And while some press outlets have tried to "play up" Mr. Tough Guy Bush, the candidate cannot escape the impression this is the latest incarnation of a slapped-down, vulnerable candidate who let "inevitability" slip through his fingers who now has to bill himself as a "reformer with results."
About the only thing he's reformed is his slogan and his attitude. The result -- he may have barely shored up South Carolina.
Atwater's creation, an election engineered to consolidate conservative support, instead has exposed a vulnerable front-runner who should have easily won the state. It's also exposed an increasingly divided and anxious GOP. Anything less than a decisive victory by Bush will be looked upon as another serious loss -- and may well trigger a flood of defections among Bush endorsers and supporters to McCain.
The situation has also exposed another concern for the GOP -- one fraught with both peril and opportunity. It has raised the question of how influential the party will continue to allow the hard-right wing of the GOP, including Christian and/or social conservatives, to remain. These questions will snowball if Bush can barely get a majority of those reliably conservative South Carolina voters to vote for him.
The questions arose not only because of the bad press generated by Bob Jones University, whose anti-interracial-dating policy and virulently anti-Catholic content on the school web site got a huge amount of press attention this week. Is this the kind of "school" the GOP wants to be tied to? The questions were amplified by a not-so-veiled "threat" earlier this week from businessman Pat Robertson concerning the possible consequences to the party if Bush failed to win. It was supposed to be a very public warning to the RNC as well as a "call to arms" among Robertson's followers in the Christian Coalition to get behind Bush Baby -- but it also exposed a panicking Emperor Robertson as having less clothes than he would like his supporters to believe.
It has also created an opportunity for the quickly-growing number of Republicans who see the wing of the party aligned with Robertson and his ilk as a huge liability. Yes, in the short term, it may well hurt the party's chances this election -- but if they are truly interested in opening up the "big tent," moderate Republicans may be wise to use the last two weeks' events in South Carolina to push to cut bait on the reactionary, Bible-thumping, race-baiting, Confederate-flag-flying elements that have wielded all too much power within the for the last two decades.
Of course, it's not quite what Lee Atwater had in mind when he decided to turn the South Carolina Primary into a GOP Event -- but it would be good for the party and good for the country.
Copyright © 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN No. 1523-1690