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.
Here is the real issue -democrats - at least those in the south - have picked up on this. Heath Shuler won convincingly in North Carolina as a pro-life, democrat. There are other of these “blue dog” democrats in the south. If the dems figure out that they can have their big-government wishes by simply expunging the pro-choice dogma of their party, Republicanism as we know it is dead. Many social conservatives, especially those from the historically democratic south, are not dogmatic on fiscal conservatism. They vote pro-life.
In fact, Obama has tapped into this already. I know of several younger social conservatives who are supporting him, as they want to believe he is not truly pro-choice. If Bob Casey was on the ticket this year against Romney or Guiliani, he would win the election in a landslide.
Republicans need to keep the coalition together, fiscal, foreign policy and social conservatives, in order to win national elections. If any one of these were to bolt the party in droves, the dems have won.
But we've all been pretending since Reagan that the Republican party was conservative even with the Bushes and the globalists and the corporations leading the party. A pro-choice candidate would break the fantasy world that we've all lived in.
Maybe for you, I’ve been living in the ‘real world’ my entire life, and as such understand a false premise when I see it.
More and more it is looking like the Dems and the Repubs are trying to embrace too wide a spectrum of ideology within their ranks. We have often criticized the Dem’s attempt to put their arms around such a diverse coalition, noting how they take certain special interests for granted (i.e., blacks, Hispanics, labor, etc) in order to pursue single issue groups like gay/lesbian, feminists, eco-fanatics (Gore-rillas), etc.
I am afraid our criticisms are progressively more appropriate toward Republicans as well. We have three camps: 1) Social Libs/Fiscal cons (sometimes applied to true Libertarians), 2) Social cons/Fiscal Libs, and 3) Social cons/Fiscal cons. The platform of such a party is tough to broker. For years we have tauted Republicans are the party of ideas, whereas Dems couldn’t afford to tout an idea as it might offend someone. Thus they were the masters of mudslinging.
The Christian Right, of which I am one, seems split over the latter two categories, some being what Bush calls “compassionate conservatives” (like Huckabee), while others hold the line on spending, too. There is no clear platform they support when it comes to fiscal spending. Being few-issue driven, it is easy to take them for granted if Dems are much worse on those few issues.
If Repubs continue in this vein, they are following the path of Dems, albeit a much different platform, yet strategically the same mistake. At some point, moving in this direction, both parties will experience dramatic tension to split into third parties.
If that is the case, now is a critical time to engineer a winning strategy for a third party BEFORE the other party splits and dilutes its effectiveness. 3rd parties will attract those from the opposing major party dissatisfied with the direction their major party is going. That necessarily means the sacrificing of one’s own major party in the pursuit of developing something more worthwhile.
The question is what are the probabilities for each party splitting? To split a major party without a corresponding split in the opposing party ensuing is a major strategic error. Yet being the first split is a major advantage. Which is it?
Huckabee says that government spends too much:
I believe that our massive deficit is not due to Americans’ being under-taxed, but due to the federal government’s over-spending. Achieving and maintaining a balanced federal budget is an important and worthy goal necessary to our long-term economic well-being. To achieve a balanced federal budget, I believe the President should have the line-item veto.
“Huckabee says that government spends too much:”
Not as a Governor he didn’t.
I submit that the balance of trade deficit is an even bigger issue.
Conservatives should have been behind him, united, from the start! We have two short weeks to get this part started.
Now look as some misled conservatives analyze these various shills and slick types and snake oil tent preachers a little more closely, and are getting nervous about whom they support and the beds they made they have to sleep in.
Huck, Romney and their ilk--all of them, should have been discerned much more clearly earlier.
IIRC, “Roe vs Wade” was a decision of the Supreme Court. I don’t see how electing a “pro-life” President will change that fact.
IMHO, we need two more “strict constructionist” Justices on the Supreme Court if:
(1) “Roe vs Wade” is to overturned.
(2) The ACLU’s attacks on Christianity are to be stopped.
(3) The destruction of public education by special interest groups is to be stopped.
(4) The power of blood-sucking trial lawyers is to be diminished.
So I think that a voter should not ask, “Which candidate is the most “pro-life”?”
Instead, I think the question should be “Which Republican can SUCCEED in our 2008 NATIONAL election for President?”
It should be clear that Queen Hillary will NOT appoint the kind of Justices needed to reverse the destruction of our Constitutional rights.
And I think that Queen Hillary has always planned to use a “divide-and-conquer” strategy against all Republican opponents to her “coronation”. IMHO, Ron Paul’s “campaign” is a “dirty trick”, funded by her minions.
And I think Queen Hillary would like nothing better than to campaign against Mike Huckabee in the national election.
Think for minute.
How hard would it be for Hillary to claim that Huckabee is actually running to be America’s “High-Priest” — and then remind us that Americans have always feared a “theocracy”?
GOP Loses Its Life
The article presupposes that Guiliani is our candidate. Even if true (god help us), the GOP won’t lose its life - only its soul...
Could not have said it better. I'm tired of the social conservatives and their one-trick abortion pony.
Although Duncan is my candidate... I can't deny I love what the Evangelicals are doing in Iowa!... LOVE IT! :)...
I am beginning to notice a trend of pitting RELIGIONS against one another... Be smart... don't be fooled!... not ONE religious group could ever win the whole enchilada... it would have to be ALL RELIGIONS and Non religious people / groups as well, who care for decent values... I don't care where they come from!
So KEEP EYES ON THE BALL! :)
Since the 'Rat party has been 'bought and paid for' by Soros and the Moveon.org types, the 'blue dogs' will never be more than a marginal force. So the one-issue voters that voted for the pro-life 'Rat are screwed, because the 'San Francisco values' crowd that runs the party and sets its agenda will see to it that no abortion restriction ever even gets considered. And if a 'Rat becomes POTUS next year, he/she will appoint leftist judges that will set Roe v. Wade in granite.
If the so-called 'pro-life voters' would really give it some thought, they'd realize that any Republican, no matter where he or she stands on the issue, would be better than the 'Rat.
TRUE!... In those days, GWB was to me what DH is right now... The best, and look what happened. His handling on Immigration and all that fiasco of choosing Miers for the Supreme court, I have not forgotten all that.
So what do we do?... Hopefully LEARN from our mistakes. That is why I want a candidate with as much 'character' as possible. someone I can believe in what he says and Duncan is that man so far. I know, that GW is fine for many here...and that is ok for them... I would not vote for him again. sorry.
Ditto to that. By 'staying home' if the Pubbies nominate someone that's not dogmatic on the issue, the social conservatives will get a socialIST left-wing 'Rat instead.
The republicans think that we will vote for a republican just to stop Hillary or Obama. Wrong. None of the dopes current aspiring to the presidency will get my vote.
I’ll write-in “Mickey Mouse”
Many, many people feel exactly as you do.
Yes, Rudy is more focused on the WOT, as he should be. The president has very little opportunity to influence the abortion battle. There are lot’s of good reasons to appoint a conservative judge besides a right to life litmus test.
Huckabee is just a religious huckster, like the tv evangelists. He is presenting himself as a theocrat, and in doing so, he is damaging the image of the whole Republican party.
I am talking a ballsy independent run, by a true conservative, with good financing and a top of the line candidate already with great visibility/name identification.
Otherwise, you are write. I would rather cast mine for a ballot qualified conservative, then just write in a Disney character.
Tell us whom you are supporting for republican nominee.
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.