宗教右翼 非難浴びる 共和党 ネオコン一掃の動きも

2006年11月11日(土)「しんぶん赤旗」
米ブッシュ与党　大敗の衝撃
米政権の柱
宗教右翼　非難浴びる
共和党　ネオコン一掃の動きも

　「今回の選挙はブッシュ大統領とイラク戦争への住民投票であると同時に、いわゆる『ネオコン』に対する住民投票でもあった」―米中間選挙で与党・共和党が十二年ぶりに下院で少数派に転落することが明らかになった八日、「レーガン主義」を掲げる保守派の著名な論客の一人、リチャード・ビゲリー氏はこう述べ、「議会共和党指導部は全員辞職せよ」と息巻きました。（ワシントン＝山崎伸治）

　ブッシュ政権によるアフガニスタン、イラクに対する戦争。その主要な推進力の一つとなったのがネオコン（新保守主義）派でした。二〇〇一年に成立した同政権が推し進めてきた「力の政治」が、今回の中間選挙で国民の批判に直面。共和党内では、今回の選挙を機にネオコンを党内から一掃しようとする動きも出ています。

　「われわれはどうして、一九九四年の大きなもくろみと展望から、現在の意味のない争点をめぐる陳腐な政治的点数稼ぎへと変わったのか」

　上院で八議席、下院で五十四議席を増やし、｢共和党革命｣と呼ばれた九四年の中間選挙。その立役者の一人、ディック・アーミー元共和党下院院内総務は、選挙での同党敗北を前提に、十月二十九日付のワシントン・ポスト紙に寄稿し、共和党の変容を嘆きました。

　社会保障年金の崩壊や「ならず者国家」による核兵器開発、一触即発の中東情勢といった大問題に直面しているにもかかわらず、「共和党議員が取り上げるのは、国旗の冒とくや安楽死、同性結婚といった問題ばかり」だと同氏は言います。中身はともあれ、そこには、「大きな展望」を見失った共和党議員への失望が示されています。

　アーミー氏が批判の矛先を向けるのは「宗教右翼」です。共同議長を務める組織「フリーダム・ワークス」のウェブ・サイトで宗教右翼の指導者を名指しで非難しています。宗教右翼は、ネオコンとともにブッシュ政権を支えてきた一大勢力です。これまでの選挙でブッシュ共和党の重要な集票マシンとなってきました。

　これに対し代表的な宗教右翼「南部バプティスト会議」のリチャード・ランド師は、自分たちがいなければ、二〇〇四年の前回大統領選で「（民主党の）ジョン・ケリーが大統領になっていた」と豪語します。

　しかし、その宗教右翼も、今回の選挙では十分な力を発揮しなかったようです。

　共和党が今後、米国民の幅広い支持の回復を望むなら、宗教右翼との関係は足かせになりかねません。一方の宗教右翼も、汚職やスキャンダル続きの共和党にはいら立ちを隠しません。宗教右翼指導者のスキャンダルも明るみに出ました。

　中間選挙での敗北は、ブッシュ政権を支えてきたネオコンや宗教右翼をはじめ、共和党内のさまざまな勢力の力関係にも大きな変動をもたらすものとなりそうです。

GOP Blues
Where We Went Wrong
By Dick Armey
Sunday, October 29, 2006; Page B01

Somewhere along the road to a "permanent majority," the Republican Revolution of 1994 went off track. For several years, we had confidence in our convictions and trusted that the American people would reward our efforts. And they did.

But today, my Republican friends in Congress stand on the precipice of an electoral rout. Even the best-case scenarios suggest wafer-thin majorities and a legislative agenda in disarray. With eight days before the election, House speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi has already begun her transition planning.

Where did the revolution go astray? How did we go from the big ideas and vision of 1994 to the cheap political point-scoring on meaningless wedge issues of today -- from passing welfare reform and limited government to banning horsemeat and same-sex marriage?

The answer is simple: Republican lawmakers forgot the party's principles, became enamored with power and position, and began putting politics over policy. Now, the Democrats are reaping the rewards of our neglect -- and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

In 1989, Newt Gingrich rose to the number two leadership position in the House after a contentious three-way race pitting young backbench conservatives such as myself, Bob Walker, Joe Barton and others against old bulls such as Minority Leader Bob Michel and other ranking members. We thought they suffered from a minority party mindset and were too accommodating of the Democrats. Out of congressional power for nearly two generations, Republicans had become complacent. Senior members of the party were happy to accept the crumbs afforded by Democratic chairmen. Life was comfortable in the minority as long as you did not rock the boat. Members received their perks -- such as travel abroad and special banking privileges -- and enough pork projects for reelection. The entire Congress lived by the rule of parochial politics.

Gingrich and I and a handful of true believers in Ronald Reagan's conservative vision set the goal of retaking the House. The "Contract With America" outlined our platform of limited government. This vision appealed to both the social and economic wings of the conservative movement; equally important, it included institutional reforms for a Congress that had grown increasingly arrogant and corrupt. The contract nationalized the vision of the Republican Party in a way that unified our base and appealed to independents. We championed national issues, not local pork projects or the creature comforts of high office.

In 1994, this vision was validated when Republicans took 54 seats in the House, eight seats in the Senate and control of both houses of Congress.

Welfare reform in 1996 only affirmed the revolution. Bureaucrats, special interests and the White House all claimed that the sky would fall if we touched this failed Great Society program, but we held firm. When you take on a sacred cow, you must kill it completely -- tinkering on the margins is ineffective. In the end, the reform proved so successful and popular that President Bill Clinton (who rejected the original bill twice) considers it one of the best ideas his administration ever had.

At one point during the welfare reform debates, a member approached me and said, "Dick, I know this is the right thing to do, but my constituents just won't understand." I told him, "So you're telling me they are smart enough to vote for you but not smart enough to understand this?" He ended up voting to pass the bill.

Yet despite such successes, we didn't learn the right political lessons. A few months before the victory on welfare, we lost the battle over the federal government shutdown of 1995, when we were outmaneuvered by Clinton, a masterful political operator. After that fight, too many Republicans apparently concluded that America wanted bigger government. This misreading was the first step on the road away from the Reagan legacy.

We emerged as a wounded party; we stopped trusting the public; and we internalized the wrong lesson. Since the party won the majority in 1994, the GOP Conference had been consistent in requiring offsetting spending cuts for any new spending initiatives. (In fact, during the aftermath of a large Mississippi River flood, Rep. Jim Nussle even waited to find and approve offsets before moving the relief legislation for his own state of Iowa.) But by the summer of 1997, the appropriators -- rightly called the "third party" of Congress -- had begun to pass spending bills with Democrats. As soon as politics superseded policy and principle, the avalanche of earmarks that is crushing the party began.

Now spending is out of control. Rather than rolling back government, we have a new $1.2 trillion Medicare prescription drug benefit, and non-defense discretionary spending is growing twice as fast as it had in the Clinton administration. Meanwhile, Social Security is collapsing while rogue nations are going nuclear and the Middle East is more combustible than ever. Yet Republican lawmakers have taken up such issues as flag burning, Terri Schiavo and same-sex marriage.

They're fooling only themselves.

If Democrats take control of Congress on Nov. 7, they will form an accidental majority. They are not succeeding because of their principles or policy proposals, but simply because they have kept their heads down. Republicans, fearful of taking on big tasks and challenges, may be defeated next month by a party that offers nothing on the key issues of our day.

Pelosi says she would preside over a moderate Democratic majority, and has committed to raising taxes only as a last resort. But Democratic policy goals such as nationalized health care and low-interest student loans are expensive, and dozens of new spending "priorities" will crop up as soon as the election results are tallied. Democrats have promised that all new spending will be offset by tax increases, so will they raise taxes in the run-up to the 2008 race?

In essence, Pelosi will be forced to choose between a vocal base -- expecting immediate satisfaction on issues such as withdrawing from Iraq, legalizing same-sex marriage and the impeachment of President Bush -- or policies that are tolerable to a majority of Americans. That's quite a dilemma: appeasing a base that has been hungry for political revenge since 2000 and 2004, or alienating moderate and swing voters.

Pelosi has stated that House committee chairmen will be chosen by seniority. This could backfire on the Democrats, because members from the most consistently partisan districts are usually the ones who stick around the longest. Chairmen have the power of the subpoena; Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the would-be judiciary chairman, has already drafted articles of impeachment for Bush, while others are calling for investigations on the war in Iraq and the federal reaction to Hurricane Katrina. A revenge-hungry Democratic majority, substituting political grudge matches for serious policy, will not remain a majority for long.

How can the Republicans respond?

The leadership must remember that the modern conservative movement is a fusion of social and fiscal conservatives united in their belief in limited government. The party must keep both in the fold. Republicans also need to get back to being the party of big ideas. The greatest threat to American prosperity today is a catastrophic fiscal meltdown resulting from long-term entitlements. Democrats have already lined up behind the solution of raising taxes and reducing benefits. But Americans want more freedom and choice in education, health care and retirement security. Republicans -- too busy dreaming up wedge issues to score cheap points against Democrats -- have lost sight of their broad national agenda.

The likely Republican losses in next week's elections will not constitute a repudiation of the conservative legacy that drove the Reagan presidency and created the Contract With America. To the contrary, it would represent a rejection of big government conservatism. When we get back to being the party of limited government, putting a national agenda ahead of parochial short-term politics, we will again be a party that the American voters will trust to deal with the serious challenges facing our nation.

The 2006 midterm elections will be a success for the Democrats. Republicans will have to manage their own disappointment. Fingers will be pointed, and various villains will be fashioned out of recent events. But the plain fact is that Republicans have been setting the stage for this outcome for nearly a decade, running from themselves and their own principles. We will not find ourselves by conforming to the status quo, but by returning to our Reagan roots.

When we act like us we win. When we act like them we lose. Let's win.

darmey@freedomworks.org

Dick Armey, the House majority leader from 1995 to 2003, is currently chairman of the think tank FreedomWorks.