publican majority prevailed. To be sure, the pro-family, pro-lifernmargin has been reduced by eight to ten seats. But several ofrnthe newcomers are outspoken pro-family activists, includingrnRobert Aderholt of Alabama (who described himself as “thernprotector of traditional Alabama values”) and athlete Jim Runrn(whom the Washington Post called “arguably one of the mostrnconservative politicians to win a seat in the House”).rnhi order to position himself to recapture the presidency. BillrnClinton had to sign the Defense of Marriage Act, endorse taxrnrelief for families, and talk about “family values” during therncampaign. And since he failed again to win a majority of thernpopular vote, no one can really argue he has a mandate. In responsernto the mood of the electorate, he replaced chief of staffrnLeon Panctta with the more conservative Erskine Bowles ofrnNorth Carolina.rnSo social conservatives fared well in the 1996 congressionalrnelections, and it is just possible that the country is beginning tornreturn to the norms of its history—to marriage, family, respectrnfor life, individual freedom, and self-reliance. But on the nationalrnlevel, the Republicans do not seem to acknowledge thisrntrend. If the Democratic leadership wants to abolish traditionalrnvalues as quickly as possible, the Republican hierarchy merelyrnwants to move more slowly in the same direction.rnTo this end, party leaders are already talking about a Powell-rnKemp ticket in the year 2000—the one in favor of abortion, thernother an economic dcterminist. No one in authority can bearrnto say the obvious: that the party needs to run a pro-famiK’ conservativernwho can bring born-again Christians and blue-collarrnCatholics back to the GOP. Reagan won on a pro-family platform.rnSo did George Bush the first time out. Then the Republicansrnlapsed into “moderation” and lost two elections in arnrow to a “moderate” Democrat up to his earlobes in scandal.rnThe question for pro-family Christians: What should we dornabout the Republican Party? We all know that the peoplernwho really call the shots in the GOP are closet liberals on socialrnissues. They would rather lose elections than win with peoplernlike us. So how do we respond to the fact that they call our candidatesrn”extremist,” deny us a voice at the national convention,rnand refuse to speak to our issues during presidential campaigns?rnThere arc at least three possible responses.rnFirst, brushed aside, we can continue to support the GOP,rnhoping that someday the party leaders will be struck blind onrnthe road to Damascus. This is the course we followed in 1992rnand 1996. Christian pro-family leaders told Bob Dole that herndid not have to address the great moral questions of our time.rnThe so-called Christian right put aside its principles in order torngo with the apparent primary winner; and when Bob Dole lostrnthe general election, wc could not even console ourselves withrnthe thought that we had gone down fighting for a good cause.rnYet this attitude is precisely what some of the same pro-familyrnleaders are already recommending. As one of them said afterrnthe GOP convention, “All we want is a place at the table.” Neverrnmind that no one will be allowed to say grace—or that ourrnbowls will remain empty. The people who take this course ofrnaction arc already preparing us for the candidacy of Colin Powellrn—who favors abortion, but who can, they tell us, win in thernyear 2000. At present, the smart crowd is betting on this strategyrnto prevail in the GOP.rnSecond, we can adopt the Barry Goldwater approach and tryrnto capture the Republican Party in the next four years. Thisrnstrategy rests on the assumption that the GOP is redeemable.rnthat its “moderate” leadership can be persuaded to support arnconser’ative candidate next time in order to win back the presidencyrn—and that conservatives can, in a mere four years, purgernthe party of its Haley Barbours and Bill Paxons and take controlrnfrom top to bottom.rnThere are several problems with this approach. In the firstrnplace, most of the GOP’s big donors are moderates rather thanrnhard-core conservatives. They are the ones who write the bigrnchecks three and four years before a presidential election. Evangelicalsrnmay provide the grassroots workers, but pro-business,rnpro-abortion fat cats fund campaigns. And the fat eats are notrninterested in a pro-family agenda. (As one businessman saidrnduring the primary season, “Politics is supposed to be aboutrneconomics not morality.”) Increasingly, multinational corporationsrnare promoting abortion, gay rights, and the dismembermentrnof the American family. Why should they contributernmoney to a GOP that nominates a pro-life, pro-family candidate?rn’rnIn current politics, the golden rule is: “He who has the goldrnmakes the rules.” That is not merely a bumper sticker slogan.rnIt defines one of the hard realities of Republican politics—rnmoney talks. So if pro-family activists wanted to take over thernGOP, they would have to find a way to come up with $30 millionrnover the next two or three years, just to give their candidaterna chance in the primaries. This task would be more dauntingrntlian the six labors of Hercules. We are talking about an enormousrnamount of money to be raised largely among lower- andrnmiddle-income people who ordinarily devote their extra dollarsrnto private schools and the church-building fund. Pro-family politicalrnleaders would have to convince these good people thatrnthe Republican Party is worth yet more sacrificial giving. Itrnv^’ould be a hard sell—particularly after Bob Dole.rnAnd once they had found a way to raise money, pro-familyrnleaders would have to field a credible candidate—and field onernfast. You can bet that liberal Republican hopefuls are alreadyrnmaking phone calls, writing fundraising letters, and lining uprnlocal support in every state. A run for the presidency is a fourvearrnoperation. Even if the candidate does not declare untilrn1998, his supporters should be activated no later than thernspring of 1997.rnSo could pro-family activists unite quickly behind a singlerncandidate who supports their agenda? Such a swift selectionrnprocess would be virtually impossible within the current RepublicanrnParty, where GOP moderates—terrified of a pro-family,rnpro-life candidate—would do everything in their power tornmeddle in our affairs, complicate our deliberations, confuse ourrnsupporters, and slander our best possibilities. Look what thevrndid once they realized Pat Buchanan was a real threat to liberalrncontrol of the Republican Party. And look how we were treatedrnat the convention. After 1996, it should be clear that we are unv/rnelcome guests in the GOP, barely tolerated because of ourrnusefulness in the general election, but always regarded with suspicionrnand distaste.rnThink how much cheaper and better it would be to discussrnpotential candidates in a spirit of mutual purpose—and in thernrelative peace of our own house. There, in an act of prayerfulrndeliberation, we could choose a candidate other than GeorgernBush or Bob Dole. We could reject anyone who was weak andrnpliant, who scurried from one side of an issue to the other in arnfutile effort to please an abstract electorate defined by Galluprnand Roper. We could pick a person who believed unshakably inrnthe right values and who could articulate them in such a wayrn26/CHRONICLESrnrnrn