An Appeal for Calm and Clarity
By James N. Clymer The Covenant News ~ March 20, 2006
In his recent article “South Dakota GOP Shows up Constitution Party” Reed Heustis contrasts the laudable passage of a bill that will, if permitted to go into effect, outlaw virtually all abortions in South Dakota with the alleged backsliding of the Constitution Party on the abortion issue. I expect half truths, red herrings and deception from our enemies, but, frankly, I expect better of Mr. Heustis whom I think of as a true friend of restoring Constitutional government. It is incomprehensible to me how anyone could unfavorably compare the steadfastness and sacrificial sincerity shown by our members over the years with the historical record of the GOP, riddled as it is with moral compromise and opportunism.
I will not descend to a point by point rebuttal of Reed’s “friendly fire”, but there are a few misstatements that are so blatantly false that they must be addressed. First, he portrays the “recent ongoing struggle” within the Constitution Party as “whether to pursue a truly principled pro-life avenue, or traverse the deceptively enticing road of compromise and Big Tentism…” That description totally misrepresents the controversy. The truth is that the CP has not backed off the principled pro-life position of its platform one iota. Furthermore, The CPNC passed a resolution at its National Committee meeting in San Antonio that it would not endorse or support in any manner any candidate for any publicly elected office who does not fully endorse the pro-life plank of the platform. That resolution is fully effective and has been, and will be, strictly adhered to.
The real issue is when and to what extent the National Committee should exercise the ultimate authority, which it has, to disaffiliate a state party because of its internal choice of leadership. Because the National Committee has not seen fit at this point to pounce on the Nevada party and throw the entire party out, is it abandoning its principled pro-life stand? I think not. The Nevada Party reiterated their unqualified support for the National Party's no-exceptions pro-life position in a statement submitted at the Salt Lake City National Committee meeting in April of 2005, and again at a resolution passed at a Nevada state meeting in October of 2005. Their own state platform is unequivocally pro-life without exceptions. As statements from both sides during the course of all this have made clear, this controversy is between those who feel that the Nevada party must be disaffiliated if it will not depose its state party chairman, and those who feel that as long as Nevada's public policy position is 100% pro-life, such an interference in a state party's internal affairs would be contrary to reason, justice and the proper degree of state party autonomy within our national party structure.
There are some on the anti-disaffiliation side who would characterize all the pro-disaffiliation side as motivated by religious animosity, specifically against Mormons who are the dominant religious group in the Nevada party. Such a characterization is wrong. However, it is a legitimate fear that some substantial part of the pro-disaffiliation side is in fact so motivated. Some pro-religious test platform amendments proposed at the 2004 National Convention in Valley Forge, PA were alarming and absolutely against the spirit in which this party was founded. So also was the very public debate between those CP supporters in Illinois who believed that Catholics should not be in party leadership positions and those who thought they should not be in the party at all.
Secondly, Reed claims “party growth” as the rationale of those opposed to disaffiliating the Nevada IAP. I have not seen or heard anyone using party growth as their rationale. Hyperbolically, some have charged that if those afflicted with religious animosity have their way, they will purge everyone who doesn’t subscribe to their particular religious views, resulting in a party of one! But no one has said that the party should grow by being unfaithful to its principles.
I don't know how that falsehood gets reported as fact. My good friend Leslie Riley recently sent out some communications that conveyed the same misunderstanding and argued correctly that we would actually lose some good people if we betrayed our principles. At the recent Executive Committee meeting in Herndon, Virginia, Bill Shearer said that he's been in politics a long time and the way to be successful in it is to "cut people in, not cut people out". Anyone, who was there would have understood that he was referring to cutting people out because of religious differences and not suggesting that we dilute our anti-abortion stand.
It is time to lower the volume in this debate, recognize that there can be differences of opinion without being thrown into one camp or the other, without being guilty of Big Tentism on the one hand or of religious bigotry on the other. Those opposed to disaffiliating Nevada are nevertheless fully committed to the pro-life cause.
We have circled the wagons and the enemy is all around us. Let’s be pointing our guns outward, not inward.