Posted on 12/21/2007 7:26:57 AM PST by Thorin
GOP Loses Its Life
A pro-abortion nominee would shatter Reagan’s coalition.
by Tom Piatak
1980 was a watershed year for the Republican Party. The importance of social conservatives to the coalition Ronald Reagan was assembling was such that George H.W. Bush had to renounce his pro-choice past to become Reagan’s running mate. Since that time, every presidential and vice-presidential nominee of the GOP has been pro-life. There is room for debate about what social conservatives have gotten from the GOP; many now complain that they are consigned to the back of the Republican bus. But there is no doubt what the support of social conservatives has brought the GOP: electoral victory after victory, including the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004. Without the support of social conservatives in Ohio for Bush, we would now be approaching the end of John Kerry’s first term. In fact, in the 28 years since the elder Bush became pro-life to become Reagan’s running mate, the GOP has controlled at least the White House, the House, or the Senate—and often several of these—in 26 of those years.
All of this may be about to change: polls indicate that Rudy Giuliani is the frontrunner to be the next Republican presidential nominee. If Giuliani becomes the party’s standard-bearer and is then elected, the informal prohibition against pro-choice candidates within the GOP will be shattered, and the power of social conservatives within the party will inevitably decline. The bar for future candidates will be set not by the Gipper, but by the former mayor of New York who proudly told CNN in 1999, “I’m pro-choice, I’m pro-gay rights.”
Giuliani’s self description was accurate. As mayor, he marched in gay-pride parades and proclaimed “Out in Government Day.” In 1997, he signed a bill providing to city employees in “domestic partnerships” the same benefits enjoyed by married employees. Giuliani described the legislation as a “significant step forward in the human rights continuum.”
With respect to abortion, Giuliani opposed all efforts to provide legal protection to the unborn. He spoke out in opposition to requiring minors to obtain parental consent for abortions and favored taxpayer funding. When asked on “Meet the Press” in 2000 if he supported Clinton’s veto of a partial-birth abortion ban, he responded, “I would vote to preserve the option for women,” positioning himself to the left of many Democrats. Giuliani told Phil Donahue in 1989, “if the ultimate choice of the woman—my daughter or any other woman—would be in this particular circumstance to have an abortion, I’d support that. I’d give my daughter the money for it.” He went so far as to proclaim Jan. 22, 1998—the 25th anniversary of Roe v. Wade—“Roe v. Wade Anniversary Day.”
There is no reason to expect anything substantially different from a President Giuliani. Whatever grudging concessions Giuliani may make to social conservatives to get elected will not result in a president willing to speak out in defense of traditional morality or in support of innocent human life. And the compromises Giuliani has offered so far are meager. His principal concession to social conservatives has been his pledge to “appoint strict constructionist judges.” But waiting for judges to win the culture war has not been a successful strategy, which explains why some social conservatives have begun to wonder what they have earned by steadfastly supporting Republicans. After all, David Souter, Sandra Day O’Connor, and Anthony Kennedy were all presented as “strict constructionists” to the GOP electorate, and they are the reason the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade in 1992.
In the first GOP presidential debate this year, Giuliani explained that it would be “okay” if a “strict constructionist” justice voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, and “It would be also [okay] if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent, and I think a judge has to make that decision.” Such a laissez-faire attitude to the judiciary will not bring about the overturning of Roe v. Wade. It is useful to recall that Harriet Miers would most likely have voted to reaffirm Roe, and the main reason Miers didn’t make it onto the Supreme Court was that George W. Bush was so beholden to social conservatives that he could not ignore their outrage over his nominee. Giuliani would feel no such pressure.
Giuliani’s supporters trumpet the talking point that the abortion rate in New York City declined while he was mayor. They ignore the facts that Giuliani did nothing to even discourage abortion and that the abortion rate actually underwent a steeper decline in the rest of New York state. Giuliani could as reasonably take credit for the regularity of the tides during his mayoralty. His campaign website also vows to maintain “the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.” One needn’t take into account how Giuliani treated the “sanctity” of his own marriages to conclude this is meaningless. Giuliani has not demonstrated any serious commitment to the natural law, traditional morality, or religious principle, and it is easy to see how someone who viewed domestic-partner legislation as a “logical step forward” would someday view gay marriage in much the same way.
By demonstrating how unimportant social conservatives had become to the GOP, Giuliani’s nomination could well transform American politics. Millions of Americans vote Republican in spite of the party’s economic views, not because of them. There is no doubt a Giuliani candidacy would alienate many of these voters, pushing some to their ancestral Democratic home, some to a possible pro-life third party, and some to stay home on election day. Those who remain in the GOP would be part of a party that viewed the war on terror as the premier social issue, as Jonah Goldberg has argued it now is. Quite a descent from 1980.
As dispiriting as it is to contemplate a Giuliani presidency as a social conservative, it is even more depressing to consider it as a Catholic. The last Catholic nominated by the GOP for national office was Barry Goldwater’s running mate, William Miller, a dutiful Catholic and public servant untouched by scandal, who returned to practice law in his hometown of Lockport, New York after the 1964 election, successfully resisting the temptation to cash in on public service by starting a high-priced consulting firm employing dubious associates and serving questionable clients. The only Catholic to be elected president, John F. Kennedy, did have a personal life as scandalous as Giuliani’s, but at least avoided public conflict with Church teaching and had enough wit, grace, and charisma to remain a popular figure decades after his death. Giuliani lacks Miller’s decency and Kennedy’s charm. His election as president would be an embarrassment to American Catholics who agree with what the Church teaches and a disaster for all Americans who believe in traditional morality and the sanctity of innocent human life.
I thought this might be of interest.
Fred Thompson was endorsed by one pro-life group, but I guess that wasn’t good enough.
The only difference between Rudy as POTUS and any of the dims is Rudy’s focus on the WOT.
The premise is faulty. The ‘Reagan Coalition’ was torn up during Bush the Elder’s term, and that was two decades ago.
Suggsting its just now happening is denying the reality of the time since January of 1993.
As would a pro-life Socialist nominee.
I agree with this article, but I do not have any fears that Rudy will get the nomination. Huckabee’s rise is taking place precisely for this reason - lack of pro-life candidates. Thompson, Huckabee, Hunter, heck even McCain, would be pallatible to the pro-life movement at as candidates. My one concern is with Romney. His “conversion” on this issue may be enough to squeak through the primaries, but pro-life voters will find it hard to “strongly” support him and will probably lead to a defeat next November.
The people are tried of feeling betrayed.
FDT has been endorsed by NRTL along with multiple state level pro-life organizations. I believe most of the state ones are tied to the national one, but it should be a no-brainer to at least consider the guy.
The business cons and the Rockefeller Republicans that run the GOP have been seething for years at being forced to “pander to those hicks” that make up the social conservatives. This year their contempt got the better of them and they finally decided to diss them and try to ram a candidate down the social cons throats instead of having one lie and put on a show for them.
The social cons have gotten tired of it.
So they get behind a flaming SOCIALIST just because he happens to be the most dogmatic abortion opponent. Great way to cut off your noses to spite your faces, guys.
Well said.
And those pro-life voters will be so happy with a President Hildabeast, Empty Suit, or Breck Girl ... man, it feels so good to teach that 'Johnny-come-lately-on-our-one-and-only-issue' Romney a lesson, doesn't it ... /s
That is so lame that it only makes you look bad. Just because Huckabee is not Ron Paul does not make him a socialist or even a Democrat. Are you going to be the kind of persion who seriously engages the arguments or the kind of person who knocks down strawmen? The decisions is entirely yours to make.
It is and it won’t stop until we elect a truly conservative President. One who cares about the country and it’s people.
We will be pulled down into hell if we continue to elect the left and that includes Republicans or whatever.
We need to ignore polls, endorcements; etc. and elect the person most representative of us and that is Duncan Hunter.
It won’t change until you do.
You are right...."Kinder, Gentler"...
- tax increase after tax increase as AR governor
- lover of the nanny state (wants to nationalize intrusive anti-smoking laws)
- sounds like the 'Rat candidates on foreign policy issues (re: Iran)
- issuing hundreds of pardons and commutations to dangerous criminals, some of whom commited violent crimes after being freed
Huckabee is no conservative, and is not even close to being a libertarian.
And no, I'm not a supporter of surrender-monkey Ron Paul.
Don’t forget taxes.
The Social Cons had GWB as their man.....
8 years later with millions more illegals and increased spending to support compassionate conservatism the rest of us are feeling a bit pissed off.
More commonly known in some parts as a policy of “Open Borders for Jesus”, and “No Greater Love Hath No American Than To Give Up His Country to His Fellow Mexican”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.