The man who calmed the abortion firestorm

This story, republished from our archives, first ran Aug. 12, 1996.

SAN DIEGO - He got so much more than he bargained for.

Rep. Henry J. Hyde ends his duties as chair of the 1996 Republican Platform Committee with a report and speech today to the delegates.

Hyde's role placed him at the center of a firestorm where, at times, he was at odds with abortion opponents who previously have found him a champion of their cause. It put him, at times, at odds with GOP nominee Bob Dole, the man who chose him for a delicate task that remains unachieved.

In an edited interview, Hyde reflected on the tension that followed his selection as committee chair.

* * *

Q: Chairing the platform committee has been quite tumultuous. Do you wish you had turned down this chairmanship?

A: There's some disharmony among some people who felt dissatisfied by the end product, and I suppose that's inevitable.

You can't end up pleasing every faction, especially when they're so rigid and not disposed to compromise. All in all, I'm very satisfied that we got a good product.

Q: Are you? Because it seems like you're in the most delicate position of all. The goal was to pursue a compromise, but you oppose abortion. Do you consider the end result, which is not what you had worked out with Dole, a failure?

A: I don't think so. The platform is a strong pro-life platform and that's fine, that's where I'm coming from. On the other hand, as chairman I didn't write the platform; I was a facilitator and a negotiator, but you can't make a ballet dancer out of a professional wrestler. The strong-minded delegates were going to write the platform. They did.

I met with different groups and talked with them. I did my best to portray the need for compromise, but that is not a word in everybody's lexicon. So, I think all in all, given the delegates' attitude and intensity, I think we got a very good document, and I think Bob Dole can be happy with it and can run on it.

Q: Were you caught off guard by the anti-abortion activists' refusal to back down?

A: There wasn't a lot of spirit of compromise on the pro-life forces, and there was nothing I could do about that. I talked to them. I made representations from the point of view of Bob Dole, who wants an inclusive party.

There just wasn't any disposition to compromise and that was whipped up by Bay Buchanan (Pat Buchanan's sister and campaign manager), who was present at all times, and in my judgment was hoping for maximum disunity and kept stirring the pot.

When we finally got through, why she claimed it's her platform. Well, that of course, offends other people, and it was not helpful, to put it mildly. But it worked out, and when you can end up with a document that even the pro-choicers accept - they accept it because we're going to include an appendix with all of their amendments that include all of their philosophy.

They were defeated, but they wanted to get them expressed and so they'll be expressed. So when you can walk away with Buchanan claiming victory and Pete Wilson (the California governor and abortion rights advocate) claiming satisfaction, you've done something.

Q: What sort of message do you think last week's activities sends to the voting public about the Republican Party and Bob Dole?

A: If people watched the deliberations, they were favorably impressed.

Q: But a lot of people probably didn't. All they were seeing were reports that suggested Bob Dole had lost control of his platform.

A: Well, a lot of people did, though. C-Span covered it wall to wall, and I've heard from many people who watched this or watched that. They saw a bunch of ladies and gentlemen, rather than a bunch of screaming hawks or people more interested in demonstrating than convincing.

They saw a dignified, decent, spirited, vigorous, relevant process where a lot of ideas were debated, including women in combat and no-fault divorce.

I thought it was a healthy and fascinating experience, although it was arduous and exhausting for me. Sometimes I had to leave to go into the back room, the proverbial back room to negotiate fiercely and across country, I might add. I'm frankly very happy to have had the experience.

Q: Now that it's over can you open the door to that back room and tell us a little bit about what was going on in that room?

A: Well, Senator Dole was upset that the spin, the press - I'm not blaming the press, that's where the spin exhibits itself - the press gave to the final resolution of the abortion issue.

The pro-lifers, some pro-lifers were quoted as saying they won it all and they prevailed, and it was annoying because it was not the theme that Dole wanted, nor for that matter, that I wanted. I wanted unity.

There's some things that we can't agree on, but we all agree that we want Dole to be the president.

That wasn't what came across in the press, and you had Bay Buchanan claiming total victory and that offended the higher echelons of the Dole campaign who had been trying to reach out.

So there were changes suggested, things that the campaign wanted done, and there were some disputes as to the wisdom of doing what some of the people proposed and we were arguing that. At one point, it looked serious that we could end up alienating everybody and wisdom prevailed and we ended up doing what we did, which I think was satisfactory.

Q: Did Dole think that you were doing your best or did he maybe wonder where your loyalties were?

A: I've not talked to him. He's not talked to me. I really don't know.

Q: The perception in many of the reports was that Dole was not in charge, that he couldn't even control this platform exercise.

A: Well, he couldn't be in charge. The delegates are in charge. How do you dictate to a bunch of strong-minded activist people? I mean, you had to be that to get on this platform committee. You don't do that with these folks. You give them a basic text and say, "Have at it." And they did. This was a conservative platform committee.

I don't think it's fair to say Dole wasn't in control. On abortion, that's a moral issue that very few people on our platform committee seemed neutral about.

Q: Was there damage to Dole's public image?

A: I don't think the press gives him the benefit of any doubt. I wish they would once in a while. I think he's a good man, but the press is very adversarial - at least the reporters that I talked to who are always looking for an angle to exacerbate the differences between moderates and conservatives.

I really look upon the fractiousness of our delegation as a strength. They're a bunch of independent contractors. They do share a burning desire to defeat Bill Clinton and elect Bob Dole, and the respect for Dole is clearly present.

Q: Can you bring that image home to voters when you speak to the convention?

A: I think so. Expressions of unity are very important. When I present the platform to the convention ... I can assure you there will be lots of nice things said about how people expected us to be disunited and yet we stand here united.

Q: What do you get out of this whole experience?

A: Exhaustion. (Laughs.) Oh, I answered the call when I was asked. I didn't seek this, believe me. I said, "Sure," little realizing that I was going to jump off the edge of a very high cliff and get in the middle of some pretty fervent and fevered semantic disputes, but now that's it's over, I'm glad I did it.

This platform will be my platform, and I shepherded it through the rocks and shoals. I've been attacked by various and sundry people but you can always judge if you're doing something right by who attacks you.

Q: What would you say to an abortion rights supporter from Illinois who believes as strongly as you do on the issue?

A: Well, clearly the Democrats are more hospitable to abortion people - people who are passionately committed to abortion as an option. I guess it depends on how determinative this issue is to that Republican. If that's the beginning and end of all politics for them, then the Republican Party may not be where they want to be.

But if there are other issues that transcend this issue, if they think in the long term they'll get a better, safer, stronger economy and government, a more honorable White House, then it's up to them to decide how important this issue is to them right now.

Q: Is it possible that the anti-abortion activists who claimed victory may have won this battle over principle but gained nothing from a practical standpoint if it, in effect, contributes to a Democratic victory?

A: That's a good question. If you galvanize the intensity of a bloc of political activists to your side, you've gained something important and that's true of so-called gun people. It's true of pro-lifers. It's true of environmentalists to a lesser degree, but we're a conservative party for the most part.

We're a pro-life party, and I think the people whose ideology supersedes their loyalty to the party - and I'm not saying that's a bad idea - but I think they can be geared up.

As for turning off moderate and liberal Republicans of which there are a few ...

Q: And you need them to win a general election, don't you?

A: You certainly do and you need Reagan Democrats. You need conservative Democrats who are appalled by Mr. Clinton.

But you just hope that people who don't like the religious right understand that there are greater things at stake than the temporary ascendancy of one faction or another in the Republican Party and the survival of the party, if not the country, is at risk.

Again, the intensity level is more on the religious right than it is on the secular moderates.

Q: But does the religious right realize it may lose a chance of getting both a president and Congress who agree with their goals by refusing to back down as they did during your hearings?

A: Oh, I don't think so. No. I think the vision thing is a problem with all of us. Me too. Your thinking encompasses next week, not beyond that.

I don't mean to be critical of the religious right. The religious right is what it is because it believes in something.

So many people, especially political people want to find the middle ground and end up by not really standing for anything, or believing in anything or accomplishing anything.

People with strong beliefs are good people. I welcome them. I welcome tolerance too and there could be more, but I guess that's asking too much if people have very strong beliefs.