THE REPUBLICAN COALITION

At Yale University last weekend to receive the Law School Association's Citation of Merit award, Pennsylvania's Governor William Scranton waited and waited for other luncheon speakers to finish. When he was finally introduced, Scranton remarked that he had intended to give "a long and rather tedious political speech," but that there was no time now. So he scrapped his prepared text and spoke briefly off the cuff on the need for a vigorous opposition party.

What his audience missed was one of the most sense-making Republican speeches in a long while. Excerpts:

We have not had major political change, or even much evolution, in the United States since the first 100 days of Franklin Roosevelt. Americans may approve or disapprove of the New Deal, but they can agree that it changed our politics. It produced a new concept of the uses of power in American politics and government. It took the Democratic Party out of the minority position it had filled for a century, and it cast the Republicans in the role of America's opposition party.

Colliding Forces. To see how little political change there has been since that time, you need look no further than the anti-poverty program which has been proposed by the present Administration. The merits and demerits of that campaign will be debated in the months ahead, but it is an accurate and entirely nonpartisan observation to note that there is very little in it that is new. It is based almost entirely on proposals first made 30 years ago in the New Deal era.

The forces which have combined to become the Democratic Party are forces which by their very nature collide. It is a party of dreams on the one hand, and of reaction on the other. The party when it dreams has noble thoughts of shining cities, equal opportunities and social progress. The party when it governs is hamstrung by its reactionaries, who smash the dreams into tiny, unrecognizable pieces. The present majority party has failed to meet its responsibilities to American society because half of the party refuses to practice what the other half preaches.

It can be said that the Democratic Party is a marriage of convenience, while the Republican Party comes closer to being a marriage of common interest. Despite this intrinsic unity, the Republican Party frequently has managed to present itself as an organization split by a conservative-liberal animosity. The first step to unity is for the Republican Party to understand clearly what has happened to it in the past 30 years.

Negative Force. With the election of Franklin Roosevelt, it was thrown into the minority position. The majority party sets its sights on a national problem. The liberal and theoretical wing of that party proposes a solution. The other wing of the party opposes it. The majority party then goes into its customary deadlock, unable to raise enough votes to pass its own program.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party, unable under our present system to speak effectively with one voice, allows itself to appear to be split into parts. The larger segment of its voting strength recognizes, with considerable accuracy, that the Democratic solution to the problem inevitably involves another increase in power for the central Government. On those grounds, they oppose it. The smaller part of the Republican Party, because it puts predominant stress on solving the problem, swallows reservations about the increase in centralism and determines to support the solution offered by the Democrats, or some version of it.

Then what happens? If the measure passes, the Democrats get credit for it. If the measure fails, the Republicans get blamed because they have been part of the so-called "conservative coalition." In either case, the Republicans get a little bit angrier with each other, and the American public gets a little clearer image of the minority party as a negative force in our national life.

For 30 years, the Republican Party has made life easy for its opposition. For 30 years, it has managed to look negative. For 30 years, Republicans have telegraphed every punch they've thrown. All of that can change. Republicans should form a new coalition--with themselves.

Positive Force. How much better it would be if the Republican Party would implement a legislative program that recognized that though the Federal Government has the tax resources, the state governments are often far more capable of using the money efficiently and effectively.

The Republican Party, as a matter of national policy, ought to embrace a program whereby the federal Congress outlines in broad terms a national goal in meeting a national domestic problem, appropriates the money to meet it, but gives maximum authority for implementation to a strong, effective state government.

Such a policy, I am convinced, could be the first step toward waging a new political change. It would give the Republican Party its best chance of regaining the political majority because: 1) its potential of solving a problem without handing over excessive authority to the central Government is something the vast majority of Republicans would embrace; 2) the Republican Party would then be clearly positive in its approach; 3) such an approach is the pragmatic way of actually getting this country moving.

In enunciating this political philosophy, we must make it clear what delineation there is between national needs that can be met through implementation of state governments and those which are clearly and most effectively accomplished by the Federal Government. In the latter category are, obviously, foreign policy and our national defense. Given an opportunity and the necessary financial resources, the states can solve many of our domestic problems, in the field of urban renewal and housing, education, unemployment, and other domestic challenges.

If the Republican Party recognizes this and works effectively for it, it can meet the basic governmental challenge for the remainder of this century.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.