Like Kevin, I found it hard to believe the LA Times’ Ron Brownstein is willing to take Rudy Giuliani’s “federalism” argument at face value. I thought it was a fairly transparent sham, but apparently, the former mayor has fooled at least one prominent political analyst at a major news outlet.
Social issues such as gay rights and gun control divide America so sharply largely because no one has found a single solution for them equally acceptable to both churchgoing conservatives and secular liberals. The first step toward resolving these disputes may be to recognize that the search for a single solution has itself become part of the problem.
More than any other 2008 presidential hopeful, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has grasped that insight. Giuliani is mostly running for the GOP presidential nomination as a warrior against Islamic terrorism. But his most innovative domestic idea casts him as a peacemaker on the social issues that have divided the nation since the 1960s.
Giuliani argues that the best way to reduce tension about social issues is to allow states, rather than the federal government, to take the lead in responding to them. That would allow socially conservative and liberal states to each set rules that reflect the prevailing values inside their borders.
What a coincidence. Giuliani is desperate to have a very conservative GOP base overlook his support for abortion rights, gay rights, and gun control, and wouldn’t you know it, Giuliani just happens to have found an approach that will assuage some of the far-right. You don’t suppose the former mayor is just now, all of a sudden, for the first time in his adult life, singing the praises of states’ rights in order to obscure his liberal position on social issues, do you?
As Kevin added, “[E]ven his famous ’12 Commitments’ didn’t say a word about federalism, and that was only a month ago.”
I’d also note, however, that the chances of Giuliani’s strategy working are slim.
For one thing, the religious right doesn’t much care about federalism, and they’re the ones Giuliani is hoping to placate. Last year, John McCain opposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on the grounds that the issue should be decided on a state-by-state basis. Did the Dobson crowd respect McCain’s federalist worldview? Of course not. “Federalism, schmederalism,” the GOP base said. “We hate gays more than we love states.” The same goes for abortion — the right cares whether women in Massachusetts have reproductive rights, even if women in Montana don’t.
For another, Giuliani’s strategy is a half-way measure. When a rabid conservative asks the candidate, “Do you believe life begins at conception?” Giuliani is going to say, “I’m happy to let states decide that issue on their own.” That’ll satisfy a small handful of primary voters, but most of them actually want to know if he believes life begins at conception. Or whether gay couples deserve legal recognition. Or whether the federal government will promote and endorse their version of Christianity.
Giuliani’s approach is effectively a band-aid, covering the beliefs he hopes voters won’t notice. But that’s the funny thing about ideologues; they’re worried about principles, not a campaign-inspired pretense of principle.