While the results of the presidential race will certainly receive the most attention in 2024, the spring season is sure to include some interesting intra-party challenges. Some of the features of modern politics have been the struggle over ideological purity, loyalty to a party agenda, the sin of not supporting party leaders, and disillusionment on the part of the electorate with the slow progress of issues.
This is not always the case. There was an era when elected leaders pursued agendas not explicitly approved by their party, when it was considered acceptable to pass bipartisan laws, when officials worked without fear of being ‘prioritized' for not supporting what other members of their party believed and when party members can challenge the incumbent without becoming part of a larger war – it's often for the direction and soul of the party.
That all changed 45 years ago in the 1978 Republican primary: It was then that major changes began and the concepts of independence and bipartisanship, once common features, began to wane.
In the late 1970s, several Republican leaders first committed to reforming their parties. While many factions within the party have existed—Eastern Establishment liberals, Midwestern moderates and conservatives from the south and west—many believe the best path for the future is as a party for conservatives. Bolstered by Ronald Reagan's challenge to Gerald Ford in 1976, his use of more sophisticated direct mail, and frustration with the party's lack of identity, the 1978 primary was chosen as their testing ground. The first step for this courageous group was the cleansing of the disbelievers.
Targeted moderate
Three moderate Republicans found their way to the top of the conservative hit list – two veteran northeastern senators (Clifford Case and Edward Brooke) and one member of the House, John Anderson of Rockford. Since Illinois hosted its first primary in 1978, Anderson was an early target. Anderson holds the chair of the Republican Party Conference, so dropping a party leader in the season-opening election event would attract widespread attention.
Anderson is a good choice to target conservatives. He frequently strayed from the GOP agenda, took controversial positions that cost him support in his district, and had little campaign experience.
His opponent is Don Lyon, a television evangelist with conservative beliefs and values and media experience. This was not a symbolic opposition—even though Lyon was a political novice, he dedicated himself to the campaign and ran to win.
Anderson tried to ignore the challenge, but failed quickly. Lyon raised funds by direct mail, going to candidate training workshops, hiring experienced campaign managers and getting support from conservatives across the country.
Lyon built his campaign around some of the same issues that still divide voters today – lower taxes, abortion, gun registration, foreign aid policy and government spending, as well as some of the issues of the era, such as the ERA and the Panama Canal Agreement. Opinion polls show Lyon improving rapidly.
Anderson is an impressive congressman. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of legislation. He is a favorite of the news media, so he often appears on national television. To cement his GOP credentials, Anderson persuaded top Republicans to campaign for him. There were appearances from Ford, Henry Kissinger and Jack Kemp. Anderson raised a fortune, hired a political consulting firm, and aired television commercials – all things he had never done before. In March 1978, aided by a large turnout, Anderson beat Lyon 58% to 42%.
The scars that remain to this day
Case and Brooke were out of luck; emboldened by nearly toppling Anderson, the conservatives came out in force against them. Case lost his primary in June. Brooke narrowly escaped her challenge in September but limped off to a double-digit loss in November. Rather than face another challenge, this would be Anderson's last term.
Anderson won his race, but the conservatives won the war for soul and party direction. It becomes unacceptable to deviate from party orthodoxy. Working with Democrats on legislation is frowned upon. Disloyalty to the party became an open wound. Those who question the party's ethos often end up on challengers' target lists. Democrats soon developed their own purity test.
Now, 45 years later, we still suffer from these wounds because the parties did not cooperate and decency was lost. When politicians from either aisle, be it Liz Cheney, Joe Manchin or Mike Pence, choose to speak for themselves, they do so at the risk of their careers. So we ask – why is it so important to conform and so wrong to work together for the common good?
Jim Mason is the author of “No Delay: John B. Anderson's 1980 Presidential Campaign.He lives in New York City.
Send a letter to mail@suntimes.com
The views and opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Chicago Sun-Times or any of its affiliates.