RIGHT OF CENTER: MONSTER-TAMERS VS. MONSTER-SLAYERS

Jack Kemp's announcement this week that he won't seek the Republican presidential nomination in 1996 illustrates some of the disharmony in GOP ranks.

The Republican Party always had its share of dissension, but now that Republicans control Congress, those differences seem amplified.

When Kemp made his announcement, sources close to the former Housing and Urban Development head said Kemp believed he was out of step with the House Republican's Contract With America and the direction conservatives want to take the nation. As Republicans proceed to introduce legislation to fulfill those items in the contract, we can expect further rifts to arise. A month into their majority, House Republicans already have shown a willingness to compromise on their contract. Undoubtedly, tough struggles lie ahead on taxes, spending, welfare and term limits.

Many voters must be perplexed by this willingness to concede. Why the discord among Republicans over legislation that seems so popular? The cynical answer is that politicians forever will be politicians, and certainly some of the blame must be placed squarely on legislators who talked the talk before the election without ever bearing the core beliefs embodied in the contract.

But I think it goes deeper than that. The creeping intrusion of government into the lives of the governed has taken decades to evolve into the monster of power and expense it is today. Through it all, two types of Republicans emerged: Those who believe they can tame the monster and those who insist it be slain. Jack Kemp, I believe, is among the monster-tamers.

Don't get me wrong. I've always liked Jack Kemp. I distributed "Kemp in '88" literature as a college student. He has contributed a great deal to the Republican Party. When few conservatives appealed to minorities and the poor, it was Kemp's empowerment message that brought many black and other minorities into the Republican fold. As a long-time champion of supply-side economics, it was Kemp's influence on former President Ronald Reagan that meant gains in every income bracket during the prosperous 1980s.

Like Reagan, Kemp has maintained an unfailing optimism about this nation and the limitless ingenuity of its people. If he has shown a consistent weakness, it is that he puts too much faith in human nature. You can talk all you want about giving the needy a leg up instead of a handout, but when the recipient continues to beg for more at the expense of hard-working strangers, it really is only a handout.

But Kemp isn't alone. Many Republicans think the status quo of the past 50 years in Washington needn't be changed that much. "We don't need to eliminate wasteful government program," they seem to think, "we need only make them more efficient." Americans won't buy it anymore.

Efficient bad programs remain bad programs. Immoral confiscation of wealth from one segment of society to benefit another is no less moral if it involves smaller amounts of money. If New York City is the Big Apple, Washington is the rotten apple -- rotten to the core.

But to remove this cancer will take time and great effort. The contract is only a start with the real challenge yet to come. Voters can't, and won't, expect all the needed changes to come immediately or without some travail. But they must see some change.

It certainly can't be done in 100 days or in a single congressional term. To the extent big, centralized government is decimated, the monster-tamers will replace their whips with axes and join the melee.

That's one reason no conservative ought to be dismayed by Kemp's negative reaction to the Contract With America. It is, after all, only a preface, and I can't help but think Kemp will figure into at least a few chapters in this epic.

~Jay Eastlick is the news editor of the Southeast Missourian.