GovernmentExecutive.com

If Rudy Giuliani were to win the Republican presidential nomination, would that trigger a significant third-party effort by social and religious conservatives, potentially costing the former New York City mayor the general election? Don't expect an unequivocal answer here. I, for one, am still trying to get my arms around the fact that Giuliani is doing so well and appears to have a 50-50 chance of clinching the Republican nomination. Those odds perplex me, especially given his fairly liberal stands on hot-button cultural issues and his tangled personal life.

An argument can be made that if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is the Democratic nominee (as seems very likely), many Republicans -- even those who are far more conservative than Giuliani on such issues as abortion, gun control, and gay rights -- would hold their noses and vote for him anyway if he is the GOP's standard-bearer. One can argue that in politics, hatred of the enemy is as strong a motivator as love of an ally.

Contrary to popular belief, turnout did not kill Republicans in last year's midterm elections. Yes, Democrats turned out a bit more than usual and Republicans a bit less. And, yes, both parties pretty much held on to their own registered voters; relatively few defected on either side. The lopsided election result came from independents siding with Democrats by a 16-point margin. Republicans had plenty of reasons to stay home in 2006, but they didn't end up doing so.

Of course, 2008 might not follow the same pattern. And a good case can be made that Giuliani would lose too much of his base to win the general election.

Social conservatives have pretty much run the Republican Party for a long time, at least 20 years. The assumption has been that no one who opposes them on any key social issue can win the party's presidential nomination. Outside of the Northeast, that has also been true in most House, Senate, and gubernatorial contests.

For social and religious conservatives, the nomination and election of someone with Rudy Giuliani's track record would represent a repudiation of their place in the party, regardless of how he shades his positions these days. It would also give a green light to "pro-choice," pro-gun-control Republicans, as well as to those who might support domestic partnerships or civil unions for gays. Social conservatives would lose their grip on the party. To them, losing the 2008 presidential election to the Democrats might arguably be better than losing control of the GOP.

Several months ago, the chief executive officer of a major investment company explained his support for Giuliani by saying that he didn't know whether the former mayor could win the nomination, but that Republicans needed to move their party in Giuliani's direction. In some ways, Giuliani's candidacy could become something of a proxy fight between secular Republicans, who see the GOP as needing to emphasize economic and foreign-policy issues, and religious Republicans, who see social and cultural issues as being of paramount importance.

In some ways, this fight has been inevitable ever since working-class and lower-middle-class conservative white voters abandoned the Democratic Party and migrated to the GOP. Their shift was partly a reaction to the Democratic Party's stands on civil rights and the Vietnam War, but it also was in response to the Democrats' increasingly liberal positions on cultural issues.

In a Clinton-Giuliani contest, would social and religious conservatives be motivated more by their hatred of the former first lady or by the ramifications of the Republican Party's electing a president with moderate-to-liberal positions on cultural issues? The fact that Giuliani's major competition for the GOP nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, is someone who just four or five years ago had very similar positions on these issues complicates matters further. It also underscores how different things might be if former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee had the funding to be a viable Republican alternative.

For the moment, the questions are clearer than the answers. But that's what elections are for.

COMMENTS

• Steve, You hit the nail on the head. Seven years of "conservative" government - spare me more! fedworker Posted November 7, 2007 3:19 PM
• Tom, you are an idiot and have no concept of what's going on in the economy - you believe all the rosy propaganda. Those figures are just guesstimates...not real figures and get re-adjusted the following month before the new figures come out; in other words, September's figures are adjusted in October to more accurately reflect what really happened in September before October's figures are reported. The dollar is sinking due to Wall Street manipulations and bad decisions by the Fed to shore up those manipulations. Wake up and read this and maybe you will begin to understand what the future holds. Reuters: "The dollar slid to a fresh all-time low against the euro and a basket of currencies after comments from senior Chinese officials stirred concerns the central bank might shift reserves away from the U.S. currency. At 1200 GMT, the euro was at $1.4677." "The main problem is not really the impact on European companies' earnings, even though some sectors such as aerospace and autos are suffering. It's more that the dollar's slump is a sign that, behind the crisis in the banking sector, there is a crisis looming in the financing of the U.S. deficit," said Romain Boscher, head of equity management at Groupama Asset Management, in Paris. "The U.S. already faces problems to absorb losses in the subprime mortgage market, and now they might face problems related to the financing of their deficit. The question is: how long will the rest of the world agree to finance the U.S. deficit?" They just figured this out? fedworker Posted November 7, 2007 3:17 PM
• People of action do what they think is right and necessary; hopefully it is for the better. While I believe that I should not dictate to a woman what she can or can not do with her body, my dear mother believes in the sanctity of life; and I must admit that she is normally right. That particular issue caught her up in the last election, and I can not fault her beliefs. She has now come to reconsider her choice based on the totality of actions by that “righteous” man for whom she cast her vote. Such chagrin is what I see in many of those who choose based on a single issue. Personally, I find no candidate who reflects all my opinions; but then I also find common sense and common courtesy is no longer so common. That being said, there seems to be a prevalence of people who take stands with particular parties and candidates based on the sole expression of one issue; while the entirety of the party platform would seem to refute such support. For example, I’ve always been mystified by those who kill in the name of life, believe in faith-based living, but side with parties who vehemently tout the right to bear arms and disavow public aid programs. Not that I don’t lean towards similar stances on some of these issues; but the, to me, apparent contrasting of these issues and stances with faith-based decision making seems incompatible, even incomprehensible. I’m also amazed in the contrast of the Constitution demanding the separation of church and state, and the degree with which some shepherds push political ideologies onto their flocks. Speaking of incomprehensible, I won’t even discuss the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church (back to that common sense thing). Shouldn’t there be a boundary from the religiously righteous, an acceptable limit to their influence, an accounting for their actions? And how would you measure or enforce such rules? Like the Party Pacaderm, I am very interested in seeing how the so-called religious right will vote. Will they weigh in dogmatically with a “singular” focus, or are they as confused as the rest of us and vote based on the entire set of issues? Will they vote for someone this year; or just against someone? Only time will tell. Tip off Posted November 7, 2007 9:54 AM