On the Right

New York, May 31—A recent conversation with three experienced political analysts, all of them conservative, focused on the question of Mr. Reagan’s running-mate. Paul Weyrich, the bright young president of the National Committee for a Free Congress, has a bizarre suggestion, verging on quaintness. It is that Mr. Reagan should select a conservative Democrat. Not only could such a move catalyze that geological shift in party affiliation which has been overdue ever since George Wallace missed the historic opportunity to cross the aisle on the day that George McGovern was nominated for President, Weyrich adds that only if Reagan’s running-mate were perceived as more dangerous to liberal Democrats than Reagan—only then would a Democratic Congress and Democratic courts behave themselves. The thesis being that a disabled Reagan, yielding power to a conservative Democratic Vice President, would bring on the convulsive end to liberal domination of the Democratic Party. All very interesting, and worth ruminating on: on the other hand, it’s not going to happen.

Twenty years ago, Daniel Mahoney founded the Conservative Party of New York which, in any election reasonably close has, with New York’s massive 41 electoral votes, the balance of power. The Conservative Party of New York intends to back Ronald Reagan even if he chooses Bella Abzug as his runningmate: a prudent decision, in my view, since angelism is not the proper pursuit of political parties. On the other hand there is yet another political party in New York, the Pro-Life Party, and it is a single-issue party. This is not the time to discuss the question of single-issue voting (I tend to oppose it); but time to acknowledge that just as in the past some people voted with exclusive reference to how a presidential contender stood on the abolition of slavery, or the prohibition of alcohol, or on full civil rights for blacks, some entirely honorable people propose to vote with primary reference to how a political contender stands on the issue of abortion. Mrs. McCormack, it is supposed, would stand still for George Bush as vice presidential candidate. But not for Howard Baker. What is the difference in their positions on abortion?

About the Author

William F. Buckley Jr.

William F. Buckley Jr. founded National Review magazine in 1955.

Featured Tags

New York, May 31—A recent conversation with three experienced political analysts, all of them conservative, focused on the question of Mr. Reagan’s running-mate. Paul Weyrich, the bright young president of the National Committee for a Free Congress, has a bizarre suggestion, verging on quaintness. It is that Mr. Reagan should select a conservative Democrat. Not only could such a move catalyze that geological shift in party affiliation which has been overdue ever since George Wallace missed the historic opportunity to cross the aisle on the day that George McGovern was nominated for President, Weyrich adds that only if Reagan’s running-mate were perceived as more dangerous to liberal Democrats than Reagan—only then would a Democratic Congress and Democratic courts behave themselves. The thesis being that a disabled Reagan, yielding power to a conservative Democratic Vice President, would bring on the convulsive end to liberal domination of the Democratic Party. All very interesting, and worth ruminating on: on the other hand, it’s not going to happen.

Twenty years ago, Daniel Mahoney founded the Conservative Party of New York which, in any election reasonably close has, with New York’s massive 41 electoral votes, the balance of power. The Conservative Party of New York intends to back Ronald Reagan even if he chooses Bella Abzug as his runningmate: a prudent decision, in my view, since angelism is not the proper pursuit of political parties. On the other hand there is yet another political party in New York, the Pro-Life Party, and it is a single-issue party. This is not the time to discuss the question of single-issue voting (I tend to oppose it); but time to acknowledge that just as in the past some people voted with exclusive reference to how a presidential contender stood on the abolition of slavery, or the prohibition of alcohol, or on full civil rights for blacks, some entirely honorable people propose to vote with primary reference to how a political contender stands on the issue of abortion. Mrs. McCormack, it is supposed, would stand still for George Bush as vice presidential candidate. But not for Howard Baker. What is the difference in their positions on abortion?