In light of Rudy Giuliani’s all-but-announced presidential campaign — he told Fox News last night, “I’m in this to win” — high-profile conservatives are stepping up to welcome him to the race. For example, there’s Tony Perkins, head of the far-right Family Research Council.
Tony Perkins… said Monday if Rudy Giuliani wins the GOP presidential nomination, Democrats will take back the White House in 2008.
“If by some chance Giuliani were to gain the Republican nomination it would set up a very similar scenario that we had last November,” Perkins said in an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network. “A unenthusiastic Republican base which will suppress turnout and set up a Democratic victory.” […]
“Americans do not yet realize how far outside of the mainstream of conservative thought that Mayor Giuliani social views really are,” Perkins told CBN. “Once people focus on this election and the candidates, Giuliani’s lead will diminish.”
And then there’s Terry Jeffrey, the editor-at-large of Human Events, writing for National Review.
By advocating abortion on demand and same-sex unions, Rudy is doing something far more egregious than, say, defacing a New York subway train. He is defacing the institution that forms the foundation of human civilization. That is not conservative.
Rudy will not win the Republican nomination because enough of the people who vote in Republican caucuses and primaries still respect life and marriage, and are not ready to give up on them — or on the Republican party as an agent for protecting them.
So, really, why bother? What can Giuliani tell GOP primary voters that would convince them to nominate a pro-choice, pro-gay candidate as the Republican presidential nominee for the first time in the party’s history?
As it happens, he may have something resembling a plan.
When Sean Hannity asked Giuliani about abortion rights last night, the former NYC mayor said: “Where I stand on abortion is I oppose it, I don’t like it, I hate it, I think abortion is something that is a personal matter that I would advise somebody against, however, I believe in a woman’s right to choose. I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that. I think ultimately you have to leave that to a disagreement of conscience.”
But he also hinted that his judicial nominees would disagree with him, and he praised conservative Supreme Court justices like Alito, Roberts, and Scalia, all of whom reject abortion rights. Giuliani specifically told Hannity he would want “justices who interpreted the Constitution rather than invented it.”
It’s a clumsy and borderline ridiculous attempt to “finesse” the abortion issue, but it appears to be Giuliani’s strategy. In other words, here’s the pitch to the GOP base: he’s pro-choice, but it doesn’t matter because his judges won’t be. Sure, he’s accepted awards from NARAL and has taken a firm stand against banning what the right-wing likes to call “partial-birth abortion,” but his judges will compensate by ruling the opposite of the way he would.
This isn’t particularly coherent. First, part of being pro-choice, which Giuliani has always bragged about being, is the belief that reproductive rights are part and parcel of Americans’ constitutional rights. Part of being pro-life is the belief that Roe should be overturned, which in turn could lead lawmakers to ban the procedure. One cannot be both — it’s impossible to believe that abortion can and cannot be regulated by law.
Second, as publius explained very well, Giuliani would have a government to shape as president.
The problem, of course, is that it doesn’t really matter what Giuliani thinks personally about abortion. If his executive branch nominates judges that are anti-abortion, or delegates that process to the Federalist Society and OLC, then he is for all practical purposes anti-abortion.
The larger point here, one I made in 2004, is that it’s important to resist viewing presidential elections (particularly general elections) as personality contests. It’s important of course to consider an individual’s judgment prior to handing over the keys to the military. But voters should also remember that they’re selecting not just an individual, but an executive branch. In an ideal world, voters would therefore take into the account the types of people who will be running the various administrative agencies (and nominating judges) under a certain person’s presidency….
Personally, I would only be willing to vote for someone like Giuliani — despite our agreement on social issues — if I had some assurance that his executive branch (and judicial nominations) would be institutionally different than the current one. My hunch though, as his comments to Hannity show, is that Giuliani would let social conservatives run a big part of the show (including nominating or vetoing judges). In fact, he may be even more deferential on these matters to compensate for his liberal social views. The bottom line is that while I see major differences in the personal preferences of people like Brownback and Giuliani, it’s not clear that their executive branches would be all that different.
It should make for a fascinating sales pitch. Center-left voters, who may like his social policies, would get to hear all about the ways in which he’d ignore those policies as president. Center-right voters, who are skeptical about him, would get to hear how he’ll turn his back on everything he’s believed throughout his professional career.
Who does this appeal to?