GOP Loses Its Life

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.

polls indicate that Rudy Giuliani is the frontrunner to be the next Republican presidential nominee.

When did he write this article?? He better re-check his data.

I don't know why I bothered reading past that.

:
The Social Cons had GWB as their man.....

What a crock. Bush talked the talk to broaden his appeal, but he is a neocon and a business/oil man conservative through and through, which is why he is happy to let those illegal aliens through.

Don’t blame the social cons for the guy that the corporate cons put up.

I am pro life. I am opposed to any form of partial birth abortion. I am opposed to any form of state/fed funding of abortion.

Having said that, there is no candidate in the Country that is going to give the pro life movement what it wants.

The best case scenario for the pro life movement here and now, is that Roe V Wade would be overturned. Once that happens, states like New York and New Jersey will still have abortion, states like Nebraska and Alabama will ban it.

Your point about southern Dems was interesting. I've witnessed my two sisters, former southern Republicans, supporting social conservative Dems recently. One even changed her party affiliation from GOP to Dem. I haven't given it much thought since I wrote off all Dems many years ago. I continue to believe the GOP has not become so deficient of morals that Guiliani will be their nominee but I am prepared for a Dem-lead government should the GOP make such a mistake.

I've stayed away from FR for several weeks but based on what I'm seeing here today, my guess is that Republicans will continue their downward slide until they regain their moral footing.

I believe you but you also need a decent and upstanding leader or it won’t work. Nothing is black and white.

“He ran on a pro-life platform and support for faith based initatives....”

Of course he “ran on it”, thats easy. But did he cut my tax dollars funding to abortion providers? Roe vs Wade doesn’t demand we fund the murder. Did he stand up and blast the courts when they demanded the removal of the 10 commandments from courthouses, even though Congress had passed no law regarding an establishment of religion?

Huckabee has surged because he won a couple of debates and he’s got evangelical support. If a quick rise can happen to the liberal pro-life evangelical Huckster, it can happen to the conservative pro-life evangelical Hunter.

According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts

49 posted on 12/21/2007 2:44:27 PM PST by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)

“Of course that little thing the WOT isn’t important so the thumpers are going to give us Huckabee”

Not if this “thumper” has anything to say about it.

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.