YOU SAY YOU WANT A REVOLUTION

By Michael Kinsley

It is hard not to admire the professionalism of the Republican Party. It has fantastic "message discipline"--Washington argot for the ability to develop a party line ("We're not cutting Medicare, we're saving Medicare") and stick to it. Republicans are skilled at dressing plutocratic policies (such as a capital-gains-tax cut) in populist clothing. Above all, Republicans refuse to let mere principle get in the way of political victory. I'm not talking about universal principles such as truth and intellectual integrity. Both parties are adept at abandoning these trifles. But the Republicans have a special gift for putting aside their own particular political principles, if necessary, in order to win elections.

Consider the current enthusiasm for Colin Powell. It has become obvious in the past couple of weeks that the few top Republicans who are not running for President themselves are drooling to have Powell as the party's presidential nominee. They were starting to drool when Powell's political views were almost completely mysterious. They are still drooling now that Powell's views on many issues turn out to be moderate to liberal.

Democrats are enthusiastic sectarians. They are always looking for apostates. Bill Clinton hadn't been President more than five minutes before the "new Democrats" were denouncing him for being an "old Democrat" and "real Democrats" were denouncing him for being a "Republican." Republicans, by contrast, are always looking for converts. They will forgive Colin Powell any apostasy as long as he will win them the presidency.

Rupert Murdoch's new conservative magazine, the Weekly Standard, published its first issue in September. It is the self-styled voice of the conservative revolution. The headline emblazoned across the magazine's cover was PERMANENT OFFENSE. But the most notable article was a virtual endorsement of Powell for President by William Kristol, the Standard's editor and the G.O.P.'s most influential strategist. So much for the revolution.

Republicans are starting to have second thoughts about their front runner, Bob Dole. The public complaints are that he is not "with the program"--not a real conservative revolutionary. Yet there are other Republican candidates whose conservative purity should satisfy anybody. Why turn to Colin Powell? There is only one reason: he can probably win.

As I say, this eye-on-the-ball Republican attitude is admirable in a way. After all, any reasonable conservative ought to prefer a vaguely moderate, above-politics President Powell to another four years of President Clinton. That is why Republican Brahmins are busy making wonderfully subtle distinctions about Powell's support for affirmative action--an issue they formerly saw in stark, absolutist terms. It is why even Ralph Reed, front man for Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, is making cautiously friendly noises about a man who says brazenly that he is "pro-choice" on abortion.

Thus Republican Powellmania illustrates a second point: even the loudest enthusiasts of the conservative "revolution" don't really believe that most American voters share their revolutionary enthusiasm. The conservative case for Powell is that as President he would be a soothing father figure while Speaker Newt Gingrich continued the revolution from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. But if Republican leaders really believed their own rhetoric about the meaning of last year's election--that it reflected a fundamental choice for radical change in a conservative direction--they wouldn't need to strain themselves for such a rationale. How can there be a real conservative revolution sweeping the country if the Republican Party fears to nominate a real conservative for President?

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, published last week, shows that Powell would wallop Clinton, 54% to 39%, in a two-man race and would tie Clinton and Dole if he ran as an independent. More telling, though, are the results of a series of questions asked only of Republican voters about Powell's views on abortion, affirmative action and so on. Do Powell's unconservative views make these Republicans more likely or less likely to vote for him, or do they have no effect? In every case, "more likely" came in first, "no effect" second and "less likely" third. Even regarding Powell's refusal to promise not to raise taxes--surely a bedrock principle of the alleged conservative revolution--37% said this made Powell more appealing as a candidate, 34% said it had no effect and just 27% said they would hold it against him.

This poll should not necessarily be taken to mean that voters don't mind having their taxes raised. The more probable meaning is that they respect Colin Powell precisely for his freedom from orthodoxy of any sort--or perhaps, more simply, that they just like Powell and don't care too much about the whys and wherefores. The Republicans, skilled strategists that they are, have been brilliant at taking this fairly inchoate rejection of "politics as usual" and repackaging it as a conservative revolution. Colin Powell, should he decide to take the bait, is their best hope for doing so again in 1996. But if there really were a conservative revolution sweeping the country, this confidence trick would not be necessary.