VIEWSrnThe GOP FloprnWhy Dole and Kemp Lostrnby Samuel FrancisrnAs the Republican primaries drew to a finish last spring, thernseveral pundits whom the Grand Old Partv earries in itsrnpockets began to sing the praises of the man who was emergingrnas the winner. Partisans of his rivals—Ste’e Forbes, LamarrnAlexander, Phil Gramm, and others—started lining up to kissrnhands and bend knees to the nominee, and b the time of thernRepublican National Convention in San Diego, there was hard-rnIv anvone who even remembered that there had been suchrnthings as primaries at all.rnThe chccrleading for Bob Dole reached a crescendo when hernannounced the selection of Jack Kemp as his running mate, hirn1992, Mr. Kemp had left the convention as the front-runner forrn1996, but various contretemps in the intervening four ears hadrncast a pall over his chances, hi compan- with William Bennett,rnKemp had supported and campaigned for a California ballotrnmeasure for school choice, but their support accomplished little,rnand the measure failed. In 1994, both of them again campaignedrnagainst the same state’s Proposition 187, ending welfarernbenefits for illegal immigrants, but again their help for thernmeasure’s foes accomplished nothing, and Proposition 187rnpassed bv a substantial margin. Bv the beginning of 1995,rnKemp’s political prospects had dimmed considerably, and inrnaddition to his blunders on the California issues, he had alsorntaken other positions that alienated large numbers of conserxativernand Republican grassroots activists—his championing ofrnNAFTA, for example, as well as his apparent indifference tornsuch blistering social issues as abortion, special legal rights forrnhomosexuals, and, by no means least, his ocal opposition tornanv effort to abolish or cut back affirmatie action, includingrnhis opposition to California’s Proposition 209. By early 1995,rnSamuel Francis is a nationally syndicated colwnnist and editorrnof a monthly newsletter, The Samuel Francis Letter.rnhis star had dimmed to the point that Kemp announced hernwould not be a candidate for the presidencv in 1996, andrnamong other reasons he cited the difficultv he had experiencedrnin raising funds among eonservati’e high-rollers who did notrnshare his eccentric enthusiasms for Martin Luther King, renewingrna civil rights agenda, and the economic interests of the urbanrnunderclass. I hs announcement that he would not run wasrnw idcK greeted as the termination of his political career.rnAnd et. when Bob Dole called Kemp to his bovhood homernin Russell, Kansas, to announce his enthronement as his runningrnmate, the pundits went wild with joy. Despite the dwindlingrnof Kemp’s prospects among funding sources and grassrootsrnactivists, his cadres inside the Beltwav had never lost faithrnin him, and it was from that cadre that most pundits took theirrncues. Kemp’s whole political ideology of what he calls “progressivernconservatism” consists of government by, for, and ofrnthe policv-wonks—enterprise zones, public housing experiments,rnsupplv-side arcana, and spreading democracy abroad.rnAll these projects imply a scale and scope of national governmentrnfar larger than what most non-Beltway conservatives haerneer cnxisioned or envision today, and all of them promise a virtualKrnbottomless cornucopia of jobs and power-playing insidernthe belK of the federal beast. Moreoxer, nothing Kemp offersrnthreatens the hegemom’ of liberalism and its premises of a federalrngoxernment dedicated to the proposition that all peoplernshould be made equal, which is wh’ the announcement of hisrnnomination elicited praise from such stalwarts of the Beltwayrnleft as David Broder and, from the Washington Post editorialrnpage, the comment, “The fact is that Jack Kemp stands forrnsome of the best impulses in the Republican Part}.”rnYet the exuberance with which the Dole-Kemp ticket wasrngreeted lasted no longer than the summer, and as the ticketrnfailed to blip on the radar screens of the public opinion polls.rn14/CHRONICLESrnrnrn