Supporting a robust two-party system
Holshouser argues for the importance of a big tent in a political party, although he worries about the influence of party intellectuals. He supports a robust two-party system, he adds.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with James E. Holshouser Jr., May 9, 1998. Interview C-0328-3. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
- JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR.:
-
Anybody who thinks about it for very long realizes that if
you're going to have a viable party, you've got to
have a big enough umbrella to have varying philosophies under that
umbrella. If you don't, you're just not big enough
to win. We still have a coalition put together that's not
that different than it was in the sixties and early seventies.
It's just gotten larger. You've got the business
Republicans. You've got the country club
Republicans—and there's a lot of overlap there.
You've got the Populist Republicans who grew up in the
mountains; and rural Republicans, who have a mixture of Populism and
social conservatism. You also have a group of intellectual
conservatives. I guess if I'm fair I say that it
concerns me when either party gets dominated by intellectuals who never
run for office, have never served, and who haven't had to go
through the ordeal of trying to get elected and trying to build
consensus for ideals as opposed to just getting out and fighting for
them. There's a lot more subtlety in how you build consensus
than trying to beat the other guy on the head with your ideas. That
makes challenges in both parties. One of the reporters told me one time
that the Democrats have their lettuce pickers and the Republicans have
their Neanderthals, and it always makes for interesting conventions. I
guess that's probably true.
- JACK FLEER:
-
And good reporting, probably. [Laughter]
- JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR.:
-
That's right.
- JACK FLEER:
-
Has the party made as much progress here in the 1990s as you would have
expected in the 1970s?
- JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR.:
-
More, I think. I always thought the hardest thing to do would be to get a
majority in the legislature. Frankly, when I was talking with the state
chairman about one o'clock in the morning on election night
in '94 and he told me we were going to take the House, I just
really couldn't believe it. I told a lot of people in Raleigh
that I thought that was a much more important step as a party than if I
had been elected governor. It might not have happened if I had not
gotten elected governor. You never know about these things. I think the
state is a two party system. It's not to parity on
registration yet, but that's about the only place. The
delegation in Washington is split right down the middle, while
we've got two Republican senators now. The fact that the
state can elect Terry Sanford and Jesse Helms to the Senate says that
it's still a state that you can't exactly put
your finger on. I think that's sort of
intriguing, because it's still up for grabs for idealists all
the time.
- JACK FLEER:
-
And that's healthy for the state?
- JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR.:
-
I think it is.
- JACK FLEER:
-
Certainly part of what you hoped for when you started building the
two-party system back in the 1960s?
- JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR.:
-
That's right, because it wasn't to build a one
party Republican state, it was to have a state where people got to
listen to different ideas. I have to admit, though, that listening to
them in thirty-second commercials is not the best way to get them. I
also know that as much as that gets criticized, if you do a
thirty-minute talk to the people—you look at the Nielsons on
that and the numbers go way down in terms of people who will watch that
long.