Media

cessity of having leaders who are abovenreproach.nLimbaugh, too, has played down hisnstands on critical social issues in an effortnto emphasize the “inclusive” bread-andbutterneconomic themes that some Republicansnthink are their key to electoralnsuccess. On one level, such as generatingnopposition to the Clinton health carenscheme, this was somewhat effective.nBut it also resulted in a controversial alliancenwith the Clinton administration innseeking passage of NAFTA and GATT.nLimbaugh joined Gingrich and Kristol innsupporting these agreements, despitenstrong evidence that they will contributento the erosion of American sovereigntynand the country’s manufacturing base,neliminating good, high-paying jobs.nSome contend that Limbaugh’s shiftnon the issues stems from his celebrity status,nfrom his having “gone Hollywood.”nIndeed, he took time off from his shownduring a critical debate over last year’sncrime bill to participate in the opening ofna “Planet Hollywood” restaurant, wherenhe posed for photographs with RoseannenBarr. It may be that rubbing elbows withnthe liberal elites at cocktail parties innManhattan, where his broadcast originates,nhas affected him. It may also stemnfrom the tendency of some conservativesnto take their base for granted once theynacquire power and influence. In anyncase, the change in Limbaugh’s tonenand demeanor is obvious over the air.nNewsweek, in an article published just beforenlast November’s elections, notednthat “intramural feuds” involving RepublicannNew York City Mayor RudolphnGiuliani, Jack Kemp, and WilliamnBennett had “left the GOP’s chiefnspokesman—Rush Limbaugh—nearlynspeechless” on his show.nIt is important to sort out these feudsnand the role “GOP spokesman” Limbaughnplayed in them, because they shednlight on whether the Republican Partynwill have a future that is in any sensenconservative. Limbaugh endorsed PatnBuchanan eariy in the 1992 presidentialncampaign, only to embrace PresidentnBush and denounce both Bill Clintonnand Ross Perot later in the race. It isndoubtful whether a candidate of Buchanan’snviews or stature would ever winnLimbaugh’s endorsement again in anpresidential contest. Limbaugh driftednso far to the left last year that he becamena cheerleader for New York City MayornRudolph Giuliani, whose conservativencredentials were always questionable atnbest. Giuliani, after all, won the mayoralnelection and then proceeded to marchnin a “gay rights” parade and order his policento protect an illegal pro-pedophilendemonstration. Yet Limbaugh praisednGiuliani’s performance during his firstnseveral months in office, mainly on economicnand law enforcement grounds,nand even touted a dinner party he hadnattended with him. Then, Giuliani endorsednthe liberal ideologue and fauxnCatholic Mario Cuomo for governor,nand Limbaugh, with egg all over his face,ntold his audience that the whole thingnhad to do with the fact that Giuliani hadnalways wanted to be a Democrat—a factnthat apparently had not been evident tonLimbaugh before.nOn immigration, Limbaugh was alsoncaught flat-footed. He claimed that henunderstood why Californians plannednto vote for Proposition 187, the initiativento terminate welfare benefits for illegalnaliens, but expressed sympathy for Bennettnand Kemp and their “vision” for thenGOP when they came out against it.n”Jack and Bill,” he said, “are my friends,nand I’m not going to condemn them.”nKristol went even further, saying Kempnand Bennett showed “real politicalncourage” in opposing a measure thatnwon 59 percent of the vote.nEven more maddening was Limbaugh’sncheedeading for COP “moderates”nbefore the elections, one of themnbeing Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. Atnfirst, Romney’s Mormon and businessnbackground convinced some conservativesnto support him in his race againstnthe decadent incumbent, Senator TednKennedy. But Romney’s strategy was tonrun as liberal as Kennedy on the issues, innthe hope that the race would be decidednon character alone. The problem wasnthat running as a liberal proved Romneynhad no character at all. Not content tonpromote gay rights and abortion, despitenhis own views on these subjects, he wentnso far, during one debate with Kennedy,nas to endorse homosexuals in the BoynScouts, on whose board he sat!nThe case of multimillionaire “moder-•nate Republican” Michael Huffington wasneven more pathetic. He was a backer ofnabortion, gay rights, gays in the military,nand gun control, including the “assaultnweapons” ban sponsored by his “opponent,”nSenator Diane Feinstein. Nevertheless,nsome conservatives supportednhim, partly because his engaging wife,nArianna, had emerged as a conservativenfigure at National Review Institute con­nnnferences and had a television programnon the conservative National EmpowermentnTelevision network.nThe dirty little secret that Limbaughnhas yet to confide to his audience is thatn”moderate” Republicanism is a^ cruelnfraud. That was evident when “moderate”nRepublican Senator John Warnernhelped sabotage Oliver North’s Senatenbid by urging Republican Marshall Colemannto run as an independent, thus dividingnthe Republican vote and lettingnincumbent liberal Chades Robb squeaknthrough. It is doubtful whether Warnernwill pay a price for his disloyalty to thenparty. Indeed, the GOP establishmentnwill give him official support when henruns for reelection in 1996.nIn Virginia, cultural conservatives andnChristian activists will be reluctant tonsupport Warner because of what he didnto North. But the Christian Coalitionnhas boasted about supporting other Republicansnwho disagree with them, evennon critical issues such as abortion. Thesenactivists—the foot soldiers of the modernnRepublican Party—are supposed tonbe content with the thought that, in thendistant future, the cultural breakdownnwill be reversed and it will become acceptablento be pro-life. In the meantime,nthey are supposed to keep quiet aboutnfederal tax dollars spent on fetal tissuentransplantation and human embryonresearch. After all, unborn babies andnhuman embryos—dead or alive—do notnvote. But illegal aliens, on the othernhand, are potential Republicans!nThe conservative embrace of “moderate”nRepublicans has encouraged thosenplotting to eliminate the Republican Party’snsupport for constitutional protectionsnfor the unborn by 1996. Yet thenpro-life case can be made more effectivelynnow than ever before. The scientificnand medical evidence increasingly pointsnto (1) the fetus being a human being andn(2) the harmful effects of abortion, includingnits link to breast cancer. Limbaughnis in the perfect position to makenthis case. Unfortunately, he has alreadynbacked away from his pro-life position,nthat life begins at conception, by embracingnthe “states’ rights” approach,nwhich dictates life and death for the unbornnon the basis of where they mightnlive. Even this, however, might be too extremenfor the GOP’s “moderate” wing.nEventually, the same people pushing fornthe weakening of the GOP’s pro-lifenstand will also be promoting a weakeningnof the party’s opposition to “homosexualnMARCH 1995/43n