FIGHT ON THE RIGHT?

When the Republican Party seized the White House in 1968, there were many who said the GOP was unlikely to give it up any time soon.

The Democratic Party, it was said, had become divided against itself. The 1972 nomination of George S. McGovern demonstrated that one wing of the party--an extreme liberal wing--had wrested control of the party from the hands of those who could form a coalition and get a Democratic president back in power.

Associate Professor of Government Mark A. Peterson, who teaches a course on the American Presidency, says 1972 was "the low point" for the Democratic party and, in a sense, "the Republicans looked invincible."

And with the exception of the election of Jimmy Carter, often considered a fluke brought on by Watergate, the Republicans were invincible, posting victories year after year. Although they kept firm hold on the Congress, the Democrats could not coalesce when it came to presidential politics, and were doomed to repeated failure.

If, as many have predicted, George Bush should lose, some fear that a similar phenomenon may transpire in increasingly divided GOP ranks.

Ronald Reagan during his eight-year presidency managed to put together a broad coalition that crossed party and class lines.

When the late Lee Atwater looked toward 1992, he envisioned a continuation of this "big tent"--a party that could encompass a similar broad partnership.

But Atwater's vision was not realized this year. Today's GOP includes the more-or-less moderate Bush contingent and the ultra-conservative wing that propelled Patrick J. Buchanan to prominence in the primary season. It also features a committed anti-abortion group holding fast against a growing pro-choice movement in the party. But the groups appear more fractious than united.

Buchanan's attacks on Bush during the primary campaign and his prime time convention speech may have alienated more moderate Republicans.

And most say the Buchanan factor played a key role in Bush's lagging in polls during much of the general election campaign.

"They played the convention as if the only place those televisions were going on were right-wing nutso households," says Democratic political analyst Bob Beckel.

But Bush Republicans were in charge last August in Houston. Why did the GOP bend over backward to accomodate a group which would harm its November chances?

"They've always been fearful of the right wing because they don't understand it," says former Reagan staffer Ed Rollins. "This was not a convention controlled by the right wing. This was a convention that was turned over to the right wing."

Some suggest the GOP may repeat that error on a larger level. Peterson said that one of the many possible scenarios for the party in the next four years is a radical swing like the Democrats' in 1972.

"It's possible that the Republicans would do the same thing and go all the way over to the right," Peterson says.

But it is not likely. Americans probably need not fear (as one questioner proposed at an IOP event last week) "Phyllis Schlafly keynoting a convention nominating the Buchanan-Falwell ticket."

"The ultra-conservative faction exists, but I wouldn't put it at any more than 10 percent of the party." says Harry J. Wilson '93, the former president of the Harvard Republican Club.

And while the far right may be more vocal, the faction of the party led by Massachusetts Gov. William F. Weld '66, who takes a far more liberal position on social issues including gay rights and abortion, is also growing in prominence and size. Many predict that in 1996 the Republicans will be much more tolerant of the pro-abortion rights wing of the party.

In any case, one thing is clear--the current GOP leadership will be hearing from both the more conservative and more liberal wings if it loses the White House today. "I think we've got a couple-year fight ahead of us," Rollins says.

Some Democrats gleefully predict that the GOP that emerges from the fight will be badly split, opening the way for a Democratic lock on the White House.

Beckel, the Democratic analyst, says he forsees a long dry spell similar to his own party's 24-year drought.

"I think it's lost for a long time," he says.

But Rollins says he disagrees with such pessimistic predictions for the party, though he acknowledges that it could occur "if we basically let one wing of it take control."

Peterson, a registered Democrat, says he doubts a GOP version of the Democratic drought is imminent, since the Republican big tent is not so diverse or fractious as the Democrats.'

"The Democratic coalition is just more complex and contradictory overall than the Republican one is," Peterson says.

Peterson also says the "slower, stodgy process" of making changes in the GOP establishment will discourage a takeover by any one faction.

Wilson, too, dismisses a conservative seizure of control. Instead, he expects a more popular change of direction.

"I guarantee you that within the next four years a new commitment to social policy will emerge in the Republican party," Wilson says.

Wilson envisions a movement led by Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp, former Education Secretary William J. Bennett and several Republican governors, and sees the elimination of Bush and his cronies.

"The do-nothing Republicans will be out of the picture," Wilson said.

Regardless of the outcome tomorrow, the Republican party over the next four years will be forced to confront the possibility of change. How it handles that confrontation may determine its success well into the 21st century.