More Strategery
James Dobson of Focus On The Family is threatening to sit out the upcoming election (or find a third candidate) if the Republicans choose Rudy Giuliani.
I'm not sure if this is brinksmanship or foolishness, but it's an interesting strategy. One way of looking at it is Dobson's rejecting a candidate who will give him a lot of what he wants but he wants more, which will ultimately mean he'll get nothing.
Another way is he figures he's got to be strict, since it's the only way to get what he wants--he can't bluff or no one will take him seriously.
How should Republican strategists look at it? Well, they could say Rudy is out, but more likely it won't change anything. They'll figure most Dobson types will have to vote for him when push comes to shove (and they'll try to sweet-talk them along the way), and also perhaps Rudy will pick up enough votes in the middle to make up for it. In fact, it's even possible Rudy's failure to give in to the religious right (if you want to see it that way) can be played as a positive.
The tug of the base can't be ignored, but you also can't give them everything. This happens al the time in the two-party system, though most often with the Democrats in our lifetimes.
The only person I know who's enjoying this is Hillary Clinton.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:43 AM
5 Comments:
Many of the evangelicals signed onto the Republican party almost exclusively for the social issues like anti-abortion and now anti-gay rights. They may have adopted some of the economic issues, but those were not really motivators. In fact, these groups have a history of populist economics. Thus, if they have to vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate, they're really getting nothing of "what they want." Why should they support someone just because he's from the party that used to espouse their main issues?
But you're wrong -- I am also enjoying watching this marriage made in hell unravel.
But they are getting a lot with Rudi. When it comes to abortion, almost nothing matters but Supreme Court justices, since until they reinterpret the law, nothing's doing. And Rudy's already announced he wants to choose "strict constructionists" like Roberts and Alito. Hillary, on the other hand, is guaranteed to have abortion as a litmus test. (She won't even have to call it one--and judge who might overrule Roe simply won't be considered to begin with.)
With gays, it's largely a matter of judges. For instance, the public, at present, doesn't want gay marriage (though it may be shifting) and the greatest successes so far have been with judges finding a right to gay marriage. Rudy's judges are simply less likely to do this than Hillary's, along with every other gay issue. (And Rudy's can't choose state judges anyway).
So if they care about nothing but abortion and gay issues, Rudy is imcomparably better than Hillary.
Its the purity of belief versus the messy practicality of politics. For both evangelicals and evangelical antiwar activists the issues matter more than the team. No measures beat half measures and the Christian Right(and other extreme subgroups within the parties) have been burned before- after all parties exist to win not to create a comprehensive philosophy.
Dobson's move I see as further evidence that his movement had a day in the sun and the great middle (within the Republican party) didn't like it much and as a result, it has become more marginalized for now.
Besides, who is to say what kind of judges Rudy would nominate- he's from New York and somewhat pragmatic after all- I don't see him falling on his sword for social issues- more likely to nominate Souters, O'Connors and Kennedys than Thomases or Scalias. Or given Rudy's record as mayor, a few former felons who talk tough
I think that LAGuy's comment above is the key. Is Rudy truly closer to the religious right than is Hilary?
If the answer is no, then the religious right certainly should threaten to bolt. It's a pure test of numbers: if they can numerically cause Rudy to lose, that makes it much more likely that the GOP in the 2010's will nominate religious right-friendly cnadidates.
If the answer is yes, then Dobson's strategy works only if the GOP doesn't call his bluff. In other words, if this helps the GOP nominate Thompson or Brownback or Huckabee, then Dobson wins.
I think that the pundits are using the wrong terminology, and that limits their ability to understand the meaning of Giuliani for the GOP.
The modern "conservative movement" (neither neo nor paleo) was shaped in the 1950s and 1960s by Buckley, Goldwater, and others. It merged three groups: (a) anticommunists, (b) free-marketers, and (c) traditionalist Russell Kirk conservatives.
But in the 1970s, three new subgroups joined the conservative movement, changing it from a minority movement to a majority movement:
1. The "neoconservatives" were mostly folks who had supported liberal economic aims until the Great Society failed, and who now held the same aims but wanted different methods. [These are irrelevant to my point; so I'm not discussing whether they are identical with today's "neocons".]
2. The "New Right" or "silent majority" were Americans who were angry with crime in the cities and the decline of American power. They supported the death penalty, an end to forced busing, not giving back the Panama Canal, and not letting Iran humiliate us.
3. The "religious right" or "moral majority" were Americans -- mostly Christians -- who cared about abortion, pornography, and prayer in school.
Unfortunately for our ability to communicate, both # 2 and # 3 were labeled "social conservatives".
This leads to the confusion we have today. As Giuliani is absolutely not in category # 3, the press says he's not a "social conservative". But in fact he is the very epitome of category # 2.
If Rudy is nominated, the November election will perhaps reveal the relative strengths of # 2 and # 3. The "category 3 social conservatives" will not vote for Rudy. But the category 2 social conservatives -- the "Archie Bunker" types -- support the death penalty, support torturing terrorists, and want urban vandals prosecuted -- but they don't actually go to church every Sunday. How many votes do they have?
Post a Comment
<< Home