Rift in the New Right

In a speech to the secretive Council on National Policy, Paul Weyrich, the right’s leading philosopher, rails on the Republican leadership — shattering the illusion that the GOP convention created a united front.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Early last month, as the pundits and analysts turned their attention to
the GOP convention,
few noticed the battle lines being drawn within the right itself. Except

for the
papering over of the Republicans’ disagreements on abortion at the
convention, the
right appeared to have won the day in setting the GOP agenda. During the

platform
hearings, Bay Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly — respectively manager and
co-chair of
the Buchanan for President campaign — pushed through nearly the whole of

Pitchfork
Pat’s program, most of which flowed from the minds of the right’s idea
men.

The acceptance speeches of Bob Dole and Jack Kemp were rife with nods to

positions
advanced by such right-wing strategists as the Christian Coalition’s
Ralph Reed, Gary
Bauer of the Family Research Council, and Paul Weyrich of the Free
Congress
Foundation: taxpayer funding of religious and private schools, tax cuts
for all, and
tax incentives for childbearing. For rhetorical muscle, Dole lashed out
at the
teachers’ unions, the Internal Revenue Service, the World Trade
Organization and the
United Nations — all favorite targets of the right.

But as Schlafly and Bay Buchanan worked their magic in the platform
hearings and Reed
sidled up to the Republican nominees, fellow social conservative Weyrich

issued a
blistering attack on GOP leaders at a closed pre-convention meeting of
the secretive
Council for National Policy (CNP), an umbrella group of the right’s
secular and
religious leaders headed by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III.

According to the text of Weyrich’s remarks obtained by this reporter
during an
assignment for Ms. magazine, the right’s leading philosopher
(widely
credited with
creating the blueprint for the GOP’s recent welfare reform bill) opened
his August 10
address by deriding Jack Kemp as a “big-government conservative” who
would help Dole
only marginally, if at all. “What you have now,” said Weyrich, “is two
candidates who
are not going to run on the Republican Platform. And if I were the other

side, I would
simply crank up a debate between the just-passed platform and the two
candidates
running on it and make that the story for the rest of the election.”

“It’s very clear,” Weyrich added, “that a majority of the people in this

country
affirmatively do not want Bob Dole to be president.”

Weyrich went on to criticize Tom DeLay, Dick Armey, Trent Lott, and Don
Nickles. But
the bulk of his ire was reserved for House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who,
Weyrich said,
“never was trustworthy.”

“I will tell you that this is a bitter turn for me,” he lamented. “I have

spent thirty
years of my life working in Washington, working on the premise that if we

simply got
our people into leadership that it would make a difference…Now, I feel

as if I have
wasted thirty years of my life — I really feel that way.”

According to the text, the primary source of Weyrich’s anger is
Gingrich’s threatened
actions against Congressmen Bob Dornan of California and Chris Smith of
New Jersey.
These two signed a fundraising letter in support of an anti-abortion
Republican
primary challenger to incumbent Sue Kelly of New York’s 19th district.
Kelly, whom
Weyrich described as a “radical feminist extremist,” sits in the
Republicans’
pro-choice camp.

The Speaker, of course, is trying to hold on to the seats he gained in
the
Republican
revolution of 1994. According to Weyrich, Gingrich demanded that Smith
and Dornan
desist or face severe disciplinary action. Enraged by the Speaker’s
“arrogance,”
Weyrich then called upon his CNP conferees to defy Gingrich by throwing
their weight
behind Kelly’s challenger, former Congressman Joe DioGuardi, and went on

to urge his
allies to see to it that their members of Congress sign a “Resolution of

Conscience”
now being circulated in the Republican Caucus that would prohibit such
punishment.
“Many of you have media outlets. Make this an issue. Many of you have
outreach. Make
this count. Others of you have influence because you have been
contributors to some of
these people. Put them on the carpet on this,” Weyrich pleaded.

In a 1990 speech to the University Club, Paul Weyrich had outlined a
wedge-issue
strategy for felling the enemies of the right which he termed
“constructive
polarization” — the putting forth of policy proposals “that build
conservative
constituencies and divide liberal ones.”

The divisions that now exist on the right all but beg for a liberal turn

on Weyrich’s
strategy. Ironically, the wedge was set by the candidacy of Pat Buchanan,

who divided
the right’s moral idealists from its political pragmatists, and called
for an economic
nationalism that is antithetical to the supply-side, trickle-down
economic theories
long embraced by the right’s moneymen.

The day after Weyrich’s speech to the CNP, Pat Buchanan’s divisive
influence was again
on display. At an event at the California Center for the Arts, Buchanan’s

faithful,
still stinging from the prospect of a Pat-less convention, sat
spellbound, eager for
orders to march their cause outside the stakes of the GOP’s “Big Tent.”
But when
Oliver North, hero of the religious right, made an appeal for party
loyalty, he was
mercilessly booed. Even Buchanan was heckled by his own troops as he
tried to herd
them back into the tent. “U-S-T-P!” they chanted, invoking the initials
of the
hard-core United States Taxpayers Party, with which Buchanan enjoyed a
tortured
flirtation throughout the primary season and in the weeks leading up to
the convention.

It could be argued that
had Buchanan the candidate never existed as a point of comparison, the
current
Republican leadership wouldn’t look nearly so awful to Weyrich, who,
despite his
string of recent successes, has chosen to take on some of his most
powerful
allies in Congress.

Adele M. Stan is a contributing writer to Mother Jones.
Illustration by Mark Zingarelli.

Read the full
text of Weyrich’s CNP speech.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate