 |
|
||||||
The California Republican Assembly has been my favorite political organization ever since I grew too old for the Young Republicans. As a college student, I was part of the Goldwater wave that took over the YRs in the early 1960s and, as a college instructor, I joined the Reagan forces in the CRA in the late 1970s. We were joined by Evangelicals a decade later. Conservatives and Evangelicals continue to dominate volunteer Republican party politics in this State, the first bringing a strong commitment to America's founding principles, the second a remarkable moral energy. Of course, what makes the CRA's political-religious mix attractive to some is repulsive to others.
The American Left is openly hostile to religious principles in politics, especially if they support conservative policies. Religion has played a major political role nonetheless, from national independence and the abolition of slavery, to civil rights and the right to life. We should remember that President George Washington said explicitly in his Farewell Address that republican government depends on morality, which in turn depends on religion. His theme has been echoed by our presidents throughout the years and has become a watchword of conservative Republican politics.
The CRA met last month in nearby Pomona on its 70th anniversary. In my view, it offers vital instruction on a wide range of political issues. But some have found disquieting the Evangelical tone of its meetings. For example, U.S. Senator Pete Wilson often clashed with the CRA over abortion, and the group reciprocated by making "no endorsement" when he ran for governor in 1990. But, without denying the seriousness of this disagreement, I am convinced that Republicans of both religious and secular bent can find common cause in the CRA if they repair to their party's—and the nation's—fundamental principles.
CRA has strongly grounded its support for men and measures in religion and morality, particularly since Evangelicals began to take an active part in its affairs. It has the distinction of being the State's oldest volunteer political organization (hence, authorized to make pre-primary endorsements), founded in 1934 by the then-dominant Progressive Republicans after the national Democratic sweep two years before. The CRA first became conservative in 1964 when it, like the YRs, was taken over by Goldwater supporters.
The CRA, much to the horror of the Left, now regularly takes the side of the Evangelicals in the so-called "civil war" between some religious Americans and those who say they fear theocratic rule. It favors traditional marriage, the right to life, and non-lethal extractions of human stem cells. While CRA members draw inspiration from Biblical religion, as Washington affirmed long ago, support for these "controversial" positions can also be found in the "self-evident" truths of equality and liberty in the Declaration of Independence, the creed of all Americans. The reason for the CRA's reluctance to accept the import of "the laws of nature and of nature's God" can be seen from a review of its past and present.
In time for the 70th year commemoration, the CRA commissioned a history, which reports: "CRA's founders were of a liberal philosophy, and therefore, CRA was liberal, as were the men they elected to public office." But after a stormy convention in 1964 during the primary battle between Republican presidential hopefuls Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona and Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York, conservatives took charge. They promptly endorsed Goldwater (who won the primary but lost the election), and have elected conservative leadership ever since. Then the fight was primarily against the welfare state, which Democrats sought in the name of "equality," and against communism, based on extreme egalitarianism. The CRA's term of choice was, and still is, "freedom."
CRA's statement of principles reflected the influence of National Review (still my favorite magazine), and paralleled the Sharon Statement of the Young Americans for Freedom in declaring that rights come from God, the individual is higher than the state, government should be as decentralized as possible, the market economy should be protected, national sovereignty should be affirmed, and Communism should be defeated, not accommodated. The statement was revised during Ronald Reagan's Presidential Administration, as Evangelicals soon joined the CRA to support the presidential boomlet of Rev. Pat Robertson. The changes reflected their concern for morality, the sanctity of life and the family, and Second Amendment and crime victims' rights, and called for the defeat of all tyranny. Morality joined freedom as a CRA goal.
The CRA's statements of principle, past and present ("What We Believe"), advert to the Declaration but not by name. Biblical morality and states' rights are seen as greater barriers to the welfare state than natural rights and free elections. Again, the CRA is uncomfortable with equality, associating it, as many Republicans have, with the Democratic Party's institution of the welfare state in the 1930s (New Deal) and the 1960s (Great Society).
The recent CRA convention, as has become customary, featured speeches by conservative politicians and activists, most prominently former Congressman Jim Rogan and State Senator Tom McClintock. Rogan was a member of the House Judiciary Committee that prosecuted the impeachment case against President Bill Clinton in 1998. In 2001 he received the Salvatori Award for Statesmanship from The Claremont Institute. McClintock was a candidate for governor in the 2003 recall election and is a candidate for lieutenant governor in 2006. It is instructive for our understanding of conservative and Evangelical politics to contrast the speeches of Rogan and McClintock, both of which were enthusiastically received.
Rogan tells a rags-to-riches story. He grew up in a dysfunctional family, which he details in his popular book, Rough Edges: My Unlikely Road from Welfare to Washington. He shaped himself into a student of the law, became a public prosecutor and judge, and achieved his boyhood dream of becoming a member of Congress.
Few things more impress the CRA than a conservative falling on his sword for his principles, as Rogan did in his unsuccessful reelection bid. His speech brought many to their feet as he recounted his role in the impeachment hearings. He closed his speech in prayer, a common occurrence in this group, which holds Sunday prayer breakfasts. Rogan epitomizes the CRA conservative.
Tom McClintock is also a man of principle, and he spends considerable time elaborating on them. CRA endorsed him for Governor in the recall election, despite Arnold Schwarzenegger's greater name recognition because McClintock supported sharper restraints on taxing and spending.
McClintock, who worked for The Claremont Institute's Golden State Center from 1994 to 1996, observed in his speech that our great political parties are built on great political principles, summarized in the word "freedom." Like Lincoln, McClintock professed that he has "never had a sentiment politically which did not spring from the Declaration of Independence." McClintock deplored California's rejection of the Declaration's principles by Gov. Jerry Brown's administration (1975-83), when the catch-phrases "era of limits" and "small is beautiful" in effect replaced the "land of opportunity."
McClintock believes that the voters want a change and urged CRA to support Gov. Schwarzenegger's plans for fiscal discipline, pension reform, merit pay for teachers, and impartial legislative redistricting in an expected November special election. Quoting Abraham Lincoln in his 1862 message to Congress, McClintock said that our situation is "piled high with difficulty" but that "we must think anew and act anew."
It is a fight best conducted, by Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals alike, on the basis Sen. McClintock sets forth. Undoubtedly, religious enthusiasm has energized our politics, even as it has increased votes for Republicans. Its healthy influence owes much to our Constitution's guarantee of freedom of religion and, in this land of multiple denominations, its official non-sectarianism. Moreover, revealed religion made common cause with practical wisdom in the Declaration's affirmation of the equal rights of all. America's common political language, therefore, arises from the "self-evident" truths that Tom McClintock, following Lincoln, draws upon in his political rhetoric. Lincoln captured the reason for America's "great prosperity" in this "Fragment on the Constitution and the Union" (1861):
Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained the result; but even these, are not the primary cause of our great prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something, is the [Declaration's] principle of "Liberty to all"—the principle that clears the path for all—gives hope to all—and, by consequence, enterprise, and industry to all. [Emphasis in original.]
As CRA continues to honor America's Founders it can affirm the source of republican government in that generation's natural-rights principles. Men like Tom McClintock remind us that the principle of the equality of all men at the heart of the Declaration is not the rationale for big government, as the liberals contend, but is the only true basis for self-government. In fact, CRA's own policy positions point to the Declaration's inseparable link of equality to the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, it can emphasize that America's principles require both civil and religious liberty and limited government, attracting citizens of all faiths and creeds repelled by the Left's false promises of material equality. Tom McClintock's well-grounded republicanism shows the way for all conservatives, of whatever sect or creed.
* * *
