REPUBLICANS HELD HOSTAGE; GOP SHOULD REJECT DEMANDS FROM EXTREMISTS THAT DRIVE AWAY MODERATES.

Byline: Matthew N. Klink

DEMOCRATS must be rejoicing because, as is often said of Republicans, ``We eat our own.''

Recently, the GOP leadership held a meeting to reignite and re-energize the Lincoln Party's social conservative base. Under threats from ultra-right wingers Gary Bauer, president of the Family Research Council, James Dobson, president of Focus on the Family, and the Christian Coalition that they would abandon the party or not turn out on election day unless the Republicans refocused their agenda, the GOP leadership kowtowed to their demands and will once again push a socially conservative agenda. This decision, a calculated gamble by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Majority Leader Dick Armey and others, may in fact succeed in turning out socially conservative GOPers even if it detrimentally impacts moderate Republicans, independents and women. However, the true result of this decision is that it could negatively influence the 1998 elections and cost the GOP its tenuous hold on the House of Representatives.

The issues that Bauer and Dobson purport will ``energize'' the GOP base cater to a small but vocal minority in the Republican Party. They ``demand'' attention because they scream the loudest. The question GOP leadership must ask and answer for themselves - but they obviously didn't before this ill-fated meeting - is where will this group go other than the GOP? Threats that they will stay home on election day, or worse, leave the party, ring hollow. Where else would this group go? No group other than the GOP would accept them.

I guess this is what is meant by the ``big tent'' Republican Party. Under the guise of protecting America's families or spouting Christian values, this group of right-wing crusaders is pushing the following issues: The curtailment of funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, always a hot button for conservatives on a mission to protect the population from government-funded pornography; opposition to partial birth abortions, a horrific procedure that, while unfortunate, impacts but a few thousand women annually; and, in the only rational position that has any broad-base of support, an end to the marriage tax penalty. Throw in the elimination of a few federal agencies, and we have the makings for a boiling cauldron of conservative stew.

What's not readily mentioned is that by pushing these ultra-conservative hot button issues, the Republican leadership may energize their base, but they also turn off large numbers of the voting public. Voters in bigger, more cosmopolitan states like California, New York, Washington and Illinois tend to be less ideological and more pragmatic on issues.

Most people vote first and foremost for their pocketbook. Young families, aside from their financial security, view GOP attempts to end funding for such things as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as an attempt to censor Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch. And women express great concern at GOP attempts to restrict abortion in any way, shape or form, albeit in limited circumstances.

When issues such as those mentioned earlier rise to the forefront - the marriage penalty excluded - women, minorities and moderate voters, the overwhelming majority of people casting votes, react negatively to the GOP and flee the party in droves. Thus we have the exodus of Reagan Democrats back to their party of origin and we now have the creation of Clinton Democrats - moderate Republicans (women, minorities and young families) fleeing an extremist party for one of moderation.

I can see it now. Weeks before November's elections, the television will be filled with thoughtful reminders of past GOP efforts that shut down the federal government two weeks before Christmas. President Clinton will veto ``extremist'' Republican legislation and will once again be able to claim the moral high ground by saying that the Democrats are the party seeking to protect social security, Medicare, education and the environment. The soccer moms so frequently referred to in the 1996 presidential campaign will once again flock to the Democratic Party.

And, even with a politically damaged Bill Clinton, the Democrats could retake the House of Representatives, an unprecedented move in a lame duck president's last two years in office.

If this happens, to whom will Dobson and Bauer cry? Certainly not Gingrich, because Richard Gephardt will assume the speakership. Pushing a socially conservative agenda that caters to a small fraction of the electorate is penny-wise, pound-foolish. But hey, Rush Limbaugh followers love the ``red meat politics,'' so it must be good!

There's a saying in Washington that the only thing in the middle of the road is road kill. And, to a certain extent, I agree. As a Republican, I support attempts to responsibly limit government's intrusion into my life and to allow me to keep more of my hard-earned tax dollars. But, the positions advocated by Bauer, Dobson and the Christian Coalition are so extreme that they alienate the vast majority of the electorate.

The GOP can succeed by pushing fiscally conservative and socially responsible legislation, not right-wing rhetoric couched behind the umbrella of protecting America's families. The vast majority of American families cannot even name one of the socially abhorrent projects funded by the National Endowment for the Arts.

If the GOP spent as much time courting women, minorities and moderate voters as it did worrying about conservative Christians, perhaps the party of Lincoln wouldn't be worrying so much about retaining its 27-seat majority in the House of Representatives.

It's a shame that the majority of fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republicans must endure the constant jibes from the far right. They distract the Republican-controlled Congress from passing legislation that impacts the majority of voters and demonstrate, once again, that a minute number of vocal, ultra-conservatives can disproportionately influence the GOP's priorities and the 1998 congressional elections.