WASHINGTON — The year was 1976. Ronald Reagan had lost the
GOP’s presidential nomination to Gerald Ford. The prospects for
conservative victories in Congress were not very promising. But I
was sure I had found a rising star. He was articulate. He was
charismatic. He claimed to be a principled conservative. I thought
of him as a potential presidential candidate.
As chairman of the Free Congress PAC, I backed him at the state
convention. (In his state you have to get a certain percentage of
the convention vote to get on the ballot.) We backed him in the
primary, which he won convincingly. And we backed him in the
general election when he became one of several western Republicans
to defeat Democrat incumbents that year.
Two of my friends, however, did not share my enthusiasm.
Gordon Jones, a Utah native who had backed a rival for the
Senate, warned me “you will find out that he is not what you think
he is.” And Dick Scaife of Pittsburgh told me: “He is originally
from Pittsburgh. He was the lawyer for some of the most unsavory
characters ever to have infected our city. You are making a
mistake. He is no principled conservative.”
Although both these men have been longtime friends and have
never misled me, I proceeded to disregard what they told me. It is
time to say once and for all: Gordon and Dick were dead right.
The “he” Gordon Jones and Dick Scaife were referring to was
Orrin Hatch. Never has anyone with so much potential produced so
little. The other day at a lunch in the Majority Leader’s office,
the Senator from Utah lectured me on how unproductive it is to say
unflattering things about him. But over these many years I have
found that only when Senator Hatch has had to face public comments
about his behavior will he respond and make at least
half-corrections.
BEFORE HE WAS EVEN SWORN in Hatch attended a meeting of
conservatives in Chicago hosted by The Conservative Caucus. He was
welcomed as a conquering hero. But his words were disappointing.
Later, he and I appeared on an evening program on WGN radio in
Chicago. He didn’t want to be called a conservative, he told the
host.
It went downhill from there. In his first term in office the
issue of Labor Law Reform came up. Hatch wanted to compromise when
no compromise was warranted. Reed Larson and I went to see Hatch to
read him the riot act. He became so angry he stormed out of his own
office, leaving us sitting there incredulously. But he returned to
the reservation.
Then in 1982, Roger Stone, one of the least desirable characters
I have ever encountered in Washington politics, wrote a memo at the
request of Hatch. Stone said in that memo that Hatch had the right
sown up. What he needed to do, Stone argued, was to move left.
Later that year Hatch seemed to be taking Stone’s advice. He
split the pro-life movement. From 1974 on, following the Supreme
Court’s Roe v. Wade decision the year earlier, the
pro-life movement had rallied around a constitutional amendment
sponsored by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) in the House and Sen. Jesse
Helms (R-NC) in the Senate. But by coming up with an amendment of
his own, Hatch caused people and groups to take up sides against
each other. The movement never fully recovered from that split.
The reason I raise this now ancient history is that Hatch is at
it again. The vast majority of pro-family groups are supporting the
constitutional amendment affirming that marriage is between one man
and one woman sponsored by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) in the
House and Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) in the Senate.
Hatch is now pushing an amendment of his own which, if brought
forward, will again split the movement and will have the effect of
guaranteeing no action at all. (I well recall James Baker, then
White House Chief of Staff under President Reagan, telling me when
I pressed him for more action on the Right to Life issue: “When you
people get your act together and are united, we’ll act, but not
before.”) The Hatch amendment this time would basically leave the
issue of so-called “gay” marriage to state legislatures. Granted it
would forbid court decisions à la Massachusetts but
it would virtually guarantee a patchwork of different laws that
would hardly lead to a national consensus.
HATCH SAYS HE HAS BEEN pushing his amendment because the
Musgrave-Allard amendment can’t make it. Indeed, he says it would
be defeated in the Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, because
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) won’t vote for it, even “with prejudice.”
(The phrase “with prejudice” means that although the Senator has
voted to report legislation out of committee and to the floor of
the full Senate for consideration, he reserves the right to cast a
negative vote against the very same legislation when the full
Senate votes on it.)
But the pro-family groups have yet to crank up in support of the
Musgrave-Allard Amendment. And knowing that the committee chairman
has a rival amendment, many senators will be reluctant to oppose
him. Hatch plays hardball, especially with fellow Republicans who
cross him.
Hatch has become a favorite of Democrats such as Sen. Ted
Kennedy (D- MA). He thinks he has made great progress in getting
them to compromise. Hatch’s conservative colleagues believe that
the compromise has been nearly always in Kennedy’s direction.
For years, Hatch harbored the illusion that he might be placed
on the Supreme Court. Alas, those days have passed. When I asked a
key White House staff member of Bush ‘43 if Hatch would, at age 67,
still be considered for the high court should there be a vacancy on
the grounds that he is one Republican the Democrats wouldn’t
filibuster, the gentleman in question couldn’t contain himself with
laughter. He suggested facetiously that Kennedy would be considered
first.
AND ALTHOUGH REAGAN ran for President at age 70, Hatch will be 74
by the time 2008 comes around. Hatch’s time here has passed as
well. So what is all this penchant for compromise about? Two
things. Hatch wants to be loved by his enemies more than almost any
Senator I have ever encountered in 38 years here. And second: His
legacy. Hatch wants to be remembered as a great legislator.
On the first point, Hatch’s enemies don’t love him for his
compromises. They have utter contempt for him. And unfortunately
for him, he has made other enemies on the right in the process. And
as for legacy, senators with principles on both sides are
remembered in the country, they’re just not admired. What real
compromiser has a monument in this city?
Senator Hatch says that, despite the terrible things I write
about him, he still loves me and prays for me. Well, Senator, I
love you too. That is why I tell the truth about you. As long as
you are alive, there is always time to change your ways.
