Starr speaks The full text of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's House Judiciary Committee testimony A dozen questions Congress should ask Kenneth Starr By David Talbot, Murray Waas and Joan Walsh A L S O +T O D A Y Reply to C.D. Ellison By David Horowitz It's time for blacks to have a two-party system, too   T A B L E+T A L K J.C. Watts, Congress' only African-American Republican, takes the No. 4 spot in the House? Share your reactions in the Politics area of Table Talk   R E C E N T L Y Toppling Saddam By Frank Smyth Clinton wants a new government in Baghdad, but he and the Iraqi opposition are unlikely to be up to the task (11/18/98) Brother on brother By Murray Waas Whitewater witness David Hale attempted to suborn perjury by his own brother by asking him to falsely corroborate illegal acts by President Clinton (11/17/98) The mark of Cain: a tale of two brothers By Murray Waas Though they traveled the same path from the family dirt farm through law school, the Hale brothers turned out different as night and day (11/17/98) The whaling that wasn't By David Neiwert Environmentalists and Indians clash over whether gray whales matter more than native culture and treaty rights (11/16/98) Paula Jones lawsuit settled A Salon Staff Report Clinton coughs up $850,000, but no apologies (11/16/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S A L O N E M P O R I U M FREE! 12-ounce bag of Salon Blend with a purchase of $30 or more. While supplies last.
		SAME OLD PARTY | PAGE 1, 2 - - - - - - - - - - Republicans only managed to retain their majority in 1996 by spending most of the year retreating from much of their original legislative agenda. And since then they've been caught in much the same bind: Put forward their agenda and risk a public backlash, or get-along-and-go-along with President Clinton and court a permanent state of rebellion on their right flank. That's why the Lewinsky scandal seemed like such a gold mine. It promised to energize the party's Christian conservative base, and it seemed at least like it would push middle-of-the-road suburban swing voters into the GOP column. All without having to push the divisive GOP policy agenda. It wasn't an accident that the Republicans focused so much on Lewinsky. Lewinsky didn't distract the Republicans from pushing their agenda. The reality is that scandal has filled the void for Republicans because they haven't been able to work out the differences between the factions in their party. Moderate Republicans reckon that if only the party could stick to the message of tax cuts and small government and not say those wacky things that scare the folks in the suburbs, then everything would be OK. But that middle ground doesn't exist for Republicans today. James Dobson, Gary Bauer and other grandees of the religious right are threatening fire and brimstone if the congressional Republicans don't start to deliver on the Christian conservative agenda. Even if conservative politicians were inclined to make a cynical move in the direction of moderation they would still be dependent on the votes of conservative die-hards who would find such a stance anathema. And it's not just their votes; Republicans are dependent on these core conservatives to impart energy and motion to the party. Without the ideological die-hards, the Republican Party really is little more than a party of the country clubs and the suburbs. Republicans who think that the Bush brothers can save the party are courting disappointment because the moderate Republican strategy has already been tried by, of all people, their father. Moderation was, after all, the project of the first Bush presidency, the message behind his election-year call for a "kinder, gentler America." But as the Bush years showed, Republicans have great difficulty energizing or communicating to a mass electorate without appeals to the sort of socially divisive issues that many Americans find repellent. Those so-called wedge issues used to help the GOP win elections; but they haven't worked so well lately. The recent GOP-inspired California ballot initiatives to end affirmative action and penalize illegal aliens galvanized crucial constituencies and helped elect Republicans. But they tarnished the party's reputation in the rest of the country and, as the recent election showed, left the California GOP in shambles. Even in Washington state, where voters abolished affirmative action in this year's election, Republicans weren't able to ride that issue to victory. Democratic Sen. Patty Murray won reelection, while in suburban Seattle, U.S. Rep. Rick White was unseated by Democratic challenger and impeachment opponent Jay Inslee. All across the board Republicans face the same basic problem: Moderating their sometimes abrasive image threatens to deprive them of their most enthusiastic supporters. That Catch-22 is well illustrated in the difficulties they face with Hispanics, African-Americans and other minority groups. It's true that Democrats can't rely on Hispanic voters to be a natural Democratic constituency. Republicans could devise a campaign message that played to Hispanic traditionalism on moral and social issues, much as George W. Bush has done in Texas. But sustaining Hispanic support in states like Texas and California would require avoiding conspicuous attacks on immigration, affirmative action and the Spanish language. And that's something the GOP has, and will continue to have, a very hard time doing. It's much the same with African-American voters. The election of J.C. Watts as Republican Conference chairman notwithstanding, to practice more than tokenism could alienate core voters. The party's mounting strength in the 1970s and '80s was based on making inroads among conservative Southern whites and appealing to the resentments that traditionally Democratic Northern, working-class ethnic voters felt against school busing and affirmative action. The GOP's problem with minorities isn't incidental; it's fundamental. Any genuine effort to aid minorities or the poor would instantly alienate a substantial portion of the Republican base. The Republicans can't be the party of black opportunity and anti-black resentment no matter how big the tent. The Democrats tried it; it didn't work. The GOP's Achilles' heel is the fact that much of its underlying energy and support come from a section of the electorate that most of the country disagrees with. Some of this is due to the Southernization of the party. As Christopher Caldwell recently wrote in the Atlantic Monthly, Republicans have become increasingly beholden to the peculiar traditionalism of the South. And that betrothal to Southern cultural politics, which helped the GOP so much in the past, has now reached what he calls the "tipping point" -- the point at which it alienates more voters outside the South than it gains within it. But there's more to it than that. There has always been a reactionary core of the American electorate located disproportionately, but by no means exclusively, within the South. The difference is that in past party configurations that reactionary core tended to be divided across partisan lines or submerged within larger political coalitions with broadly reformist impulses. In fact, for much of this century, both parties contained deeply conservative elements within their ranks. In the North these conservatives tended to be Republicans; in the South they tended to be Democrats. Another way of putting this is that there have always been segments of the American electorate that want to teach creationism in the public schools or believe that Kofi Annan is sending black helicopters to steal their lawn furniture. But seldom have they been so politicized on the issues that separate them from the bulk of the national electorate or so singularly identified with one political party. Capitalizing on the energy and commitment of these voters was key to the rise of the conservative Republican Party over the last generation. But now the chickens have come home to roost. That predicament is what is causing the present paralysis and confusion within Republican ranks. Bob Livingston is well-liked by many in the House on both sides of the aisle. And he may be an excellent legislative manager. But the basic division between the die-hards who want to take the revolution forward and the pragmatists who want to rein it in will still be there under his stewardship. There's little reason to think he'll be able to deal with it any better than Gingrich did. SALON | Nov. 19, 1998 Joshua Micah Marshall is the associate editor of the American Prospect. R E L A T E D_.S A L O N_.S T O R I E S The GOP goes "liberal" Jennifer Dunn? J.C. Watts? Politicians with such multiple defects ordinarily would be handed House leadership only after Saddam Hussein and O.J. Simpson had turned the job down. By Joe Conason Nov. 17, 1998 Newtron bomb Will Gingrich's self-purge save the Republican Party? By Bruce Shapiro Nov. 6, 1998 Gingrich, we hardly Newt ye Jerry Brown, Christopher Hitchens, Maxine Waters, Dan Schnur, David Horowitz and Mark Hertsgaard react to Newt Gingrich's stunning announcement that he will not stand for reelection as Speaker . Nov. 6, 1998 GOP Newtered Voters reject the Gingrich-Starr Agenda. By Joan Walsh Nov. 4, 1998 Th e head of Newt Will Gingrich pay if Republicans blow the election? By Joe Conason Nov. 3, 1998