One would think that these would be high times for the Republican Party.  President Bush was re-elected with more than 50% of the vote.  The Republican Party increased its number in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.  The GOP also took control of more gubernatorial houses and state legislatures.  What’s not to like?

According to Christine Todd Whitman there is plenty not to like.    Whitman, who served two terms as Governor of New Jersey and headed up the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the first two years of the current Bush Administration, sees things quite a bit differently.  She laments that President Bush won re-election over John Kerry by 3% while Bill Clinton won re-election by 8%.   Yet she does not mention that Clinton only won 43% of the popular vote.

In her first book, It’s My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America (published by Penguin Press) Whitman argues that the Republican Party “big umbrella” will collapse unless moderates in the Party can fight off the influence of “social fundamentalists,” and that the GOP will lose both the White House and Congress by the end of this decade.

Whitman defines so-called social fundamentalists as those “whose sole mission is to advance their narrow ideological agenda.”  So what is the social fundamentalists narrow agenda?  According to Whitman, the narrow agenda consists of a) overturning Roe v. Wade and with it a woman’s right to have an abortion, b) supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and c) opposing any environmental protection and regulation.  Other issues such as opposition to stem cell research and sex education also enter into their agenda.

In 1996, Whitman raised the ire of the pro-life movement when she publicly supported President Clinton’s veto of the ban on partial birth abortion passed by Congress.  Clinton had vetoed the bill because Congress had failed to put in a provision that would have allowed a partial birth abortion if the life or health of the mother was threatened.

Not long after, the New Jersey State Assembly passed a similar ban on partial birth abortion.  Whitman would not sign the bill into law and instead sent the bill back to the State Assembly with a provision that would allow the procedure in the event the mother’s life or health was threatened.  The State Assembly opted not to debate Whitman’s amendments to the bill.  Consequently, Whitman nearly lost her re-election the following year to Jim McGreevey, when the pro-life movement persuaded a pro-life candidate to run on the Libertarian Party ticket.  So it is little surprise that she does not suffer the pro-life movement gladly.

I do believe that Whitman’s position on partial birth abortion is reasonable.  What is not reasonable is the hysteria that Roe v. Wade will be overturned any minute now and it is unfortunate that Whitman has been swept up by this hysteria.  The Left has been warning Americans about the impending reversal of Roe v. Wade since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.  Well, Roe v. Wade still stands nearly a quarter century later.  While there is no doubt that President Reagan and both President Bushes would have personally supported overturning the decision, the fact remains that the United States Supreme Court cannot just simply wake up and decide to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Even if such a case is heard by the Supreme Court it is unlikely that Roe v. Wade would be overturned because the Supreme Court does not have a history of reversing its own decisions.    

The former New Jersey Governor also opposes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.  Curiously, she does not state in her book whether or not she supports gay marriage.  However, during a recent appearance at Harvard University, Whitman argued that the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) threatened to undermine Social Security reforms.  She claimed that Republicans in Congress will not support President Bush’s reforms to Social Security unless he proceeds with the Federal Marriage Amendment.  Whitman bases this argument on an article that appeared in the January 25th edition of the New York Times ("Backers of Gay Marriage Ban Use Social Security as Cudgel").   The article focuses on a letter received by top Bush adviser, Karl Rove, from a coalition of Christian organizations such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, as well as prominent individual Evangelicals such as the Reverend Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich.  The letter admonishes the Bush Administration for soft pedaling the FMA and warns Rove that they will not support Social Security reform unless the Administration changes their priorities.

But Whitman appears to have overestimated the influence of social fundamentalists.  The article also notes that Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, a strong supporter of the FMA, does not believe it would pass in the Senate if a vote were to be held.  “We’d like to bring it up when we have the best possible chance of getting it passed,” said Santorum.  Whitman did not mention this in her remarks.  So even if social fundamentalists are at odds with President Bush on this matter they are incorrect to conclude that the passage of Social Security reform (another issue on which Whitman does not comment) is dependent on the passage of the FMA.

Although Whitman resigned from the EPA in 2003, she does praise the Bush Administration for supporting some of her environmental initiatives.  For instance, the Bush Administration approved a regulation that would require mandatory reduction in nonroad diesel emissions by 90%.  However, she gave the Republican Congress a failing grade.  When the EPA was assigned to design guidelines protecting the nation’s chemical facilities by the Office of Homeland Security (this was before Homeland Security became a Cabinet Department) they were met with such resistance by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that Whitman asked the White House to relieve them of that responsibility.

The former EPA chief’s strongest criticism for President Bush concerned his reversal on supporting caps on carbon dioxide emissions.  Whitman had flown to Italy to attend a G-8 summit of Environmental Ministers to pledge her support for the cap.  However, only days later Bush reversed his position on the matter due to opposition by both the energy industry and key Republicans in the U.S. Senate, primarily because of the energy crisis that was taking place in California.  Not surprisingly, this caused Whitman to lose face with her G-8 colleagues.   

Many Republicans believe that Whitman has been captured by the EPA bureaucracy.  She takes Republicans to task for denying that there are environmental problems.  A memo sent to all House Republican press secretaries advised House Republican members to state, “Global warming is not a fact.”  Whitman writes, “(I)n a 2004 Gallup Poll, 89 percent of the American people believe that global warming will have an effect on the earth’s environment.”  Well, just because people believe something to be true does not make it true.  If 89% of the American people believed that Elvis Presley was alive that would not make him so.    

To be fair, the truth is somewhere in between.  In his seminal book The Skeptical Environmentalist, Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg writes, “Global warming, though its size and future projections are rather unrealistically pessimistic, is almost certainly taking place, but the typical cure of early and radical fossil fuel cutbacks is way worse than the original affliction, and moreover its total impact will not pose a devastating problem for our future.”

O.K., Whitman might have been embarrassed in front of her G-8 colleagues, but certainly a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions might very well be a cure that is worse than the disease.  Even the Clean Air Act, which Whitman praises in the book, does not deem carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

For her part, Whitman argues that the reversal on carbon dioxide emissions had political consequences in the War on Terror:

But as Whitman herself notes the U.S. Senate vigorously opposed Kyoto in the Clinton years.  Why weren’t America’s allies angry during those halcyon days?  Clinton also opposed American participation in the International Criminal Court.  So why was Clinton’s opposition to the ICC acceptable and Bush’s opposition not acceptable?  As for the steel tariffs, once the World Trade Organization ruled against the United States President Bush co-operated with the ruling and dropped the tariffs.  So where’s the beef?

The most troubling aspect of Whitman’s book is its superficial treatment of the War on Terror and foreign policy in general.  It is troubling because Whitman’s thinking in these matters (such as it is) seems to be stuck in a pre 9/11 mode:

Does she mean the Republican foreign policy that allowed Fidel Castro to come to power in Cuba in 1959?  Or perhaps the rise of Augusto Pinochet in Chile in 1973?  Or bestowing most favored nation trading status on China?  Take your pick.  Does Whitman consider leaving Saddam Hussein in power thoughtful?  Does Whitman consider sitting by while the United Nations (fueled by Saddam’s bribes via Oil for Food) dithers sophisticated?  Does Whitman believe Iraqi elections not to be effective?     

Throughout the book, Whitman comments on the broad appeal of moderate Republicans such as Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Yes, it is true that the aforementioned triumvirate have moderate to liberal views on abortion, gay marriage and the environment.  But that is not at the heart of their appeal.  What all of them have in common is strong support for America and the War on Terror, especially Giuliani.

It is easy to forget that prior to 9/11, Giuliani was as polarizing a figure as President Bush is today.  When I visited New York in January 2000, you either loved or hated Giuliani.  The people who loved Giuliani always pointed to the revitalized 42nd Street.  The people who hated Giuliani always pointed to the various police shootings of African-Americans.  Remember Giuliani was planning to run for the U.S. Senate against Hillary Rodham Clinton.    Giuliani vs. Clinton was as eagerly anticipated as Ali vs. Frazier.   It was not long after that Giuliani withdrew from the race because of prostate cancer.  Perhaps Giuliani would have lost the race anyway and would have faded from public life.  The events of 9/11 put Giuliani into a whole new light to New Yorkers and rest of the American public.

In our times, Americans feel comfortable with someone who puts our safety first.  George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani may be night and day on many social issues but when it comes to protecting America they are completely in synch.  Bush’s Texas twang and Giuliani’s New York accent compliment each other beautifully and put most Americans at ease.  The same could be said for Schwarzenegger’s Austrian accent.  Even if it was just a movie you cannot help but feel safe with The Terminator at your side.   Unlike John Kerry, McCain spent years in Vietnam, many of them as a POW.  Sure, he’s critical of the War on Terror at times but when he does speak about its necessity, there are few people who are more eloquent on the subject.   

Whether Whitman wants to believe it, social fundamentalists want to live in a safe country too.  Social fundamentalists have strongly supported the War on Terror.  They have also been amongst the strongest supporters of Israel (something else Whitman neglects to mention).  Indeed, they were critical in persuading President Bush to ostracize the late Yasser Arafat and give Israel more leeway in combating suicide bombers.

Whitman is, of course, entitled to her opinion.  In fact, she has launched a website, www.mypartytoo.com, whose mission it is to support “fiscally conservative, socially progressive moderate Republicans at all levels of government.”  Indeed, I do share some of her opinions on the subjects she has raised such as partial birth abortion and the Federal Marriage Amendment.  It is fair to say that there are some conservative elements in the GOP who deride RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and this is certainly not constructive.  She laments, “We spend more time trying to demonize our opponents than we do trying to discuss issues.”    Yet she spends much of this book demonizing social fundamentalists.  While I disagree with many of the conclusions arrived at by the social fundamentalists, I respect their opinions and how they arrived at them.  Whitman has little respect for their value system or the sincerity of their convictions.  Yes, there is room in the Republican Party for both moderate and social fundamentalist voices.  Although Whitman may downplay Republican success at the polls the GOP has become the majority party in the United States.  The Republican Party is a big umbrella.  The Republican Party will not remain a big umbrella if she banishes those who disagree with her into the rain.  It may be Christine Todd Whitman’s party but I bet the invitation list is not long.

It' My Party Too is available on Amazon.com.