Litmus Tests for Parties, Possibilities

WASHINGTON —  Could Chrysler Chairman Lee A. Iacocca be elected President? The answer is yes, probably. Iacocca has the image of someone who gets things done, and the polls show him handily defeating all potential contenders, Democrats and Republicans alike. The problem is, could he be nominated? The answer, probably no. He would fail too many litmus tests.

Democratic activists would ask, “Is this guy one of us?” The same thing would happen if Iacocca decided to compete for the Republican nomination. If he ran in Republican primaries, Iacocca would end up like John B. Connally. As a Democrat, he would end up like John Glenn.

Party leaders like to say that a political party is a big tent, with room inside for all kinds of people. That certainly used to be true. Democrats ran the gamut from Southern white racists to blacks and Northern liberals. The old GOP included right-wingers like Barry M. Goldwater and left-wingers like John V. Lindsay.

In recent years, however, the tents have shrunk. Racists and right-wingers are no longer welcome in the Democratic tent. Liberal Republicans face a choice of either losing (like former Sens. Jacob K. Javits of New York and Thomas H. Kuchel of California) or leaving (like Lindsay and John Anderson).

In every presidential election from 1964 through 1976, supporters could demonstrate that New York Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller was the strongest potential Republican candidate. But when Republican activists and primary voters asked, “Is he one of us?” the answer was not encouraging. Rockefeller wasn’t a real conservative, and so, to the newly conservatized GOP, he wasn’t a real Republican. He was outside the tent.

When Sen. John Glenn of Ohio ran for President in 1980, he claimed to be the most “electable” Democratic candidate. That may have been true, but the Democrats who attend caucuses and vote in primaries demanded to know: “Is he one of us?” Glenn’s attacks on Walter F. Mondale as the candidate of the past and special interests rang true to many Democrats. Eventually, they became the theme of Gary Hart’s nearly successful campaign for the nomination. But they didn’t work for Glenn. Over and over, at meetings of Iowa Democrats, Glenn’s competitors would point to him and say, “This man voted for Reaganomics!” And even worse, “This man voted for poison nerve gas!” That was too much for student activists and radical nuns. The Iowa judgment was that Glenn was not a liberal and not a real Democrat. It didn’t matter how electable he was. He was outside the tent.

Of course, litmus tests have been around for a long time. It used to be that every Democrat with national ambitions had to go before a labor audience and proclaim commitment to the repeal of Section 14B of the Taft-Hartley Act, allowing states to pass anti-union “right-to-work” laws. As the party tents have grown smaller, however, the tests for getting in have gotten tougher. To be a “real Republican” today--or at least a Republican with national aspirations --you have to be a conservative. And to be a “real Democrat,” you have to be a liberal, at least on the crucial tests.

Who determines what is politically correct in each party? In the Soviet Union, a one-party state with an official ideology, it’s easy. Remember Mikhail Suslov? He was the chief ideologist of the Soviet Communist Party. Whenever the party wanted to try something new--like, say, invading Afghanistan or allowing peasants to sell cabbages in the free market--they would go to Comrade Suslov and ask if such a policy was politically correct or incorrect. Suslov would consult the Marxist scriptures and issue a ruling. He determined who was right-wing revisionist, who was left-wing adventurist and who was centrist opportunist. He must have done pretty well: Suslov survived every purge, every upheaval and every change in Soviet leadership from Vladimir I. Lenin to Konstantin U. Chernenko.

In the United States, things are messier. What we have in each party are issue activists who guard the party orthodoxy in their own special areas.

Since the job of chief ideologist has not yet been established here--one shortcoming of the Constitution that we must remedy--here, as a service to readers, is a brief “Suslov’s guide” to current party orthodoxy.

In the area of economic policy, an authentic Democrat must be conspicuously committed to fairness and compassion. It is politically incorrect for a Democrat to call for cuts in any entitlement programs like Social Security or Medicare. In 1985, when the Democratic national chairman mentioned the idea of “means testing” for Social Security payments, the wrath of the party came down on him and he quickly retracted this grievous breach of doctrine. Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt also talks about means-testing social programs; as a result, his national political career, if not his immortal Democratic soul, is in peril. The enforcement of the Democrats’ economic orthodoxy rests with the old New Dealers, including labor unions and the congressional leadership.

The orthodox Republic position is anti-government. So it was in the days of Calvin Coolidge, so it is in the days of Ronald Reagan. The proper way for a Republican to attack government is indirectly--by starving it of funds. All Republicans must favor a balanced budget amendment, but this is essentially a rhetorical commitment. What counts is tax policy. A real Republican must support tax cuts and oppose tax increases. The “supply siders” in the GOP are guardians of this particular doctrine.

On social policy, the Democrats have rejected their party’s historic compromise with racism. Democrats today must be ardent supporters of civil rights, women’s rights and affirmative action. This is a major tenet of party orthodoxy, enforced by the party’s extensive network of minority rights activists. In 1976, for example, Jimmy Carter used civil rights to legitimize himself to the party. No candidate who got all those black votes could be considered outside the Democratic tent.

In addition, a Democrat must favor the equal-rights amendment and support freedom of choice on abortion. Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who has national aspirations, used to support a constitutional amendment to prohibit abortions. Now he opposes it. Women’s rights groups monitor any deviation from the party’s politically correct positions on ERA and freedom of choice.

Republicans have a fair degree of latitude on racial issues but not on abortion. Pro-life--that is, anti-abortion--is the only acceptable position. Candidates who violate this rule, like California Rep. Ed Zschau (R-Los Altos), are accused of not being “real Republicans.” On social issues, the Republicans rely on the religious right to guard against backsliding.

As for foreign policy, the Democrats have rejected the Truman Doctrine of Cold War interventionism. This is referred to as “the lesson of Vietnam,” and candidates ignore it at their peril. It is politically incorrect, therefore, for any Democrat to support aid to the contras in Nicaragua. When Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) voted for contra aid this year, he deeply threatened his prospects for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Republicans, conversely, must support contra aid as a demonstration of commitment to anti-communism. In the GOP doctrine, Nicaragua is properly referred to as “another Cuba.” Foreign policy is the special province of neo-conservatives in the Republican Party, those like former U.N. Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, who switched from Democrat to Republican for the explicit purpose of maintaining the tradition of Cold War interventionism.

A candidate who fails any litmus test runs the risk of alienating his base. It is difficult to do that and win statewide elections. It is impossible to do that and win a national party nomination.

Still, it is never a good idea for a candidate to show too much devotion to party orthodoxy. That might make him look too dogmatic, or too much a captive of the party’s “special interests.” (Remember when Mondale was challenged in 1984 to name a single issue on which he differed with organized labor?) While a candidate must demonstrate that he is inside the tent, he must also cultivate an image of independence. The best strategy is to pass litmus tests but make a point of deviating on some issue of lesser importance, like busing or military reform. Then the candidate can say, “I’m on your side, but I’m not your stooge.”

A final word of caution: All litmus testing is suspended when a party gets truly desperate. After the Republicans lost five presidential elections in a row, they nominated Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, even though he was not a “real Republican.” If the Democrats lose again in 1988, they, too, will begin to panic. Litmus testing will be suspended and the Democrats will nominate Iacocca for President in 1992.