What Giuliani Can Do
By TomlinsonDouthat Posted in 2008 — Comments (42) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The recent debate about the possible defection of some pro-lifers from the Republican electoral coalition in the event of a Rudy Giuliani nomination has largely been predicated upon two unwarranted assumptions, both of which have distorted the attendant issues and unnecessarily inflamed passions. Happily, however, I think that consideration of these might be able to show the way towards a resolution of this dispute, which could be to the simultaneous benefit of the Giuliani campaign, the pro-life movement, and the Republican Party as a whole.
The first of these assumptions is that the pro- and anti-Giuliani camps are reasoning from the same universe of facts. The pro-Giuliani camp has largely held that their candidate has established that he would not act to the detriment of the pro-life movement, but rather that he would, say, appoint strict constructionist judges according to the usual understanding of the term. Given this premise, the objections of the anti-Giuliani camp might be called unreasonable, since their demand, under these circumstances, would be for a candidate who merely accepts the term "pro-life," rather than anything of substance, and their actions would undercut their stated priorities.
However, this premise is not generally accepted by the anti-Giuliani camp. Rather, their argument is based on the proposition that Giuliani will, with considerable certainty, act to the detriment of the pro-life cause. Given this, those asking pro-lifers to support Giuliani are asking them to give up on the pro-life cause entirely for at least eight years in exchange for comparatively marginal gains in the fields of national security, taxes, and so on. This would be an entirely unreasonable request, considering the gravity of the abortion issue from the pro-life perspective. However, this is not quite the spirit with which the request is usually made. Until conservatives can come to some common understanding of what can reasonably be expected of a Giuliani administration on issues related to abortion, the current controversy will not be resolved.
Which leads us to the second larger assumption distorting this debate: that the situation is static—i.e., that our understanding of Giuliani's positions and our various opinions of them will not change. The purpose of a political campaign is to change opinions, and political campaigns over the years have demonstrated their great capacity to do so. This can work either for or against Giuliani. It can work for him, in that he has the ability to resolve the factual disagreement at the heart of the current debate by clarifying his intentions in the relevant matters and working to establish his sincerity in this. However, if he does not take advantage of the potential dynamism of the situation in this way, then the Democrats will do everything they can to exacerbate the schism in the Republican Party, discouraging pro-life turnout, promoting the third-party alternatives, and trying to draw whatever disaffected Republicans they can into their column. If Giuliani doesn't reach out to his pro-life skeptics, someone will.
The easiest way to do this would have been for him to simply become pro-life, and it is worth noting here that some of Giuliani's earliest and most vociferous supporters—like John Podhoretz in his Can She Be Stopped?—urged and expected him to do just that. Such a late and conveniently-timed conversion would have raised some questions about his credibility in this (as it has with a certain other candidate), but it seems to me that, in the days and weeks after 9/11, he would have had plenty of opportunities to contemplate the preciousness of innocent human life. However, it's too late for that now.
Nevertheless, even as he remains pro-choice, there are still a number of things he can do to clarify his position and perhaps demonstrate that his election would be in the interest of the pro-life cause.
He can explain himself.
Giuliani's statements in this campaign so far regarding abortion and the issues of jurisprudence touching upon abortion have been brief, ambiguous, sometimes contradictory, and often off-point. His supporters have interpreted his words in the most charitable possible light; his detractors have interpreted his words with a more jaundiced eye.
However, there is no need for interpretation, since this is not a literary text written by a long-dead white guy but the position of a living person quite capable of explaining his views and responding to questions about them. There has been considerable dispute, for instance, about what, precisely, Giuliani means when he uses the term "strict constructionist," and hence what he means when he promises to appoint judges who fit this description. There is nothing at all preventing him from explaining just what he does mean, nor from articulating just why he values this quality as he describes it, and in such a way that might plausibly establish his sincerity.
The pro-lifers who are currently skeptical of him will not be convinced in this regard by a more artfully crafted talking point. Rather, he would be better served by giving a speech on the issue, explaining in some detail what approaches to jurisprudence he finds valuable, what ones he finds harmful, and why. (I think that the speech he needs to give must be considerably more ambitious than what Fred Barnes suggests in his "The Speech He Needs to Give.") He might also submit to an interview with one or more of the many pro-life journalists and intellectuals who are currently skeptical of his candidacy and who are well-versed in the relevant legal issues. This might not be an entirely pleasant experience for him, but if the more charitable interpretations of his position are correct, then he should be able to survive such an ordeal easily, and I think he would gain a considerable number of votes as a result.
He can promise vetoes.
Giuliani has recently clarified his position regarding the Hyde Amendment and the Mexico City Policy (restrictions regarding the funding of abortion domestically and internationally, respectively). Whereas he once merely said that he would not seek to overturn them, he has now promised to veto any attempt to overturn them. This is certainly a step in the right direction.
However, there are many other pieces of legislation that Congress might send to a pro-choice president of either party, especially considering the thin thread that Roe could be hanging by, if the incumbent were to appoint a strict constructionist to the Supreme Court. If, as many presume, it is Giuliani's belief that the abortion matter should be left to the states, then it should be no problem for him to make a categorical promise to veto any attempt to codify or expand the right to an abortion in federal law, or to have the federal government facilitate abortion in any way. If, on the other hand, his position falls somewhat short of that, then it is reasonable to ask just how far short, and just what types of legislation he would sign. Even if he will not give pro-lifers 100% of their legislative requests, it might still be to his advantage to show that he would give 80%, or however much.
(He may have taken a further step in this direction in his speech last month to the Values Voters Summit (pdf), but his phrasing on this point was by turns too convoluted and too ambiguous to be of any use for the purposes under discussion here. He needs to be clear.)
He can write a new amendment.
The Republican platform in recent years has called for a constitutional amendment according Fourteenth Amendment rights to the unborn, thereby rendering abortion illegal throughout the land. This is a noble goal in the long term, but it is entirely unproductive in the short term, since it is so far from being achievable. For Giuliani to campaign with such a plank in his platform would be unfortunate politically, since it would underscore his disagreement with the party on the matter. And it would also be bad for the pro-life movement, since it would render the words entirely meaningless.
A better solution, I think, would be for Giuliani and pro-lifers together to come up with language acceptable to both sides. They might end up with something like the Hatch-Eagleton Amendment, first proposed in 1983, which simply stated, "A right to abortion is not secured by this Constitution"—that is, it overturns Roe v. Wade but does nothing else. Such language would be in the interest of many groups. It would be advantageous to the Republican Party as a whole, by making it more explicit that it welcomes voters who are pro-choice on the merits of the abortion question. It would be advantageous to the pro-life movement, in that it would draw the line more clearly between, on the one hand, the many good and loyal conservatives and Republicans who simply happen not to object to abortion and, on the other hand, those who would protect abortion as a constitutional right, and who ought to feel very uncomfortable either in the Republican Party or calling themselves conservatives. It would be advantageous to pro-life politicians, many of whom lose vital support from the large number of voters who do not understand the distinction between overturning Roe and outlawing abortion entirely and immediately. And of course it would also be advantageous to Giuliani if he could use such an effort to win the support of pro-lifers who would otherwise oppose him.
If, on the other hand, Giuliani makes no effort to find common ground with pro-lifers on this, why should they assume that there is any common ground to be found?
(Naturally, Giuliani would have no official role in the passage of any constitutional amendment as president. However, as the Republican nominee, he would have responsibility for the party platform through his delegates.)
He can offer the services of his Solicitor General.
It is generally held to be inappropriate for a president to ask a prospective judicial appointee how he would rule in an upcoming case (and hence whether he would vote to reverse an old decision). And presidential candidates, including but by no means limited to Giuliani, have embraced this tradition as an opportunity to avoid answering difficult questions as to their own opinions about important legal cases.
Once elected, however, a president, even if he scrupulously avoids anything approaching a "litmus test" in his consideration of judicial appointments, will not have the same luxury. This is because the executive branch, in the person of the Solicitor General, argues either for or against most of the appeals that come before the Supreme Court, whether directly or as an amicus curiae alongside the counsel of one of the original disputants. Under George H. W. Bush, for instance, then-Solicitor General Kenneth Starr argued on behalf of the Pennsylvania laws regulating abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the last serious effort to overturn Roe.
If a similar case were to arise during a Giuliani administration—and if he were to make an appointment to the Supreme Court even remotely resembling what some expect of him, then there will be a flood of such cases—what, then, would he direct his Solicitor General to do? To defend Roe? To defend the challenging laws? To remain silent? And on the basis of what criteria would he make his decisions in this regard?
According to the most charitable interpretations of his current position, Giuliani should have no problem assuring pro-life voters that his Solicitor General would argue for a reversal of Roe. Many voters would be greatly heartened by such an assurance, but they cannot assume a positive answer if he does not address the question.
He can choose a pro-life leader as his running mate.
Jim Geraghty of National Review Online spoke last month with "a Republican political strategist intimately familiar with the ins and outs of the religious conservative community." In Geraghty’s words:
The strategist mentioned a conversation with a figure he described as 'one of the largest Catholic pro-life donors in the country'. "He said, 'I can't support Rudy, and I won't vote for him.' I asked him, 'What if he picks Rick Santorum as his running mate?' Then he said, 'well, that's a different story!'"
At first glance, this donor might look like a cheap date, since the Constitution does not endow the vice-presidency with any meaningful powers. However, there is more substance to the idea than there first seems. For while all other presidential advisers and cabinet officials serve at the pleasure of the president, the vice-presidency is insulated and made independent by its constitutional status. The president cannot fire him.
For Giuliani to offer the vice-presidential slot to someone who has taken considerable leadership in the pro-life movement—someone who votes the right way but isn't vocal about it probably wouldn't do much good with respect to the voters he needs to convince—would be for him to offer some measure of surety to pro-lifers on any promises he makes to them. If he were to break them flagrantly, then his vice-president would object, possibly publicly. This would cause the Giuliani administration all sorts of problems, and ones not easily solved due to the vice-president's independence. Giuliani would have to listen to him, and pro-lifers would be assured of a strong and independent voice in the administration.
Santorum himself might not be the ideal candidate for this, because his past endorsement of Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey might lead some to suspect him (unfairly, to my mind) of selling out. Sam Brownback would be very well-suited to this role, I think, especially since he has pointedly refused to promise an endorsement of the eventual nominee in such a way that it would apply to Giuliani. If Giuliani can bring Brownback around, this would certainly bring a great number of his current pro-life skeptics, too.
But though such a vice-president would serve as a substantial guarantee of the sincerity of Giuliani’s other pledges to pro-lifers, I think he would also have to make these pledges so loudly and so clearly that he would lose a substantial amount of credibility if he were to renege on them. "Read my lips" might be a phrase worth keeping in mind.
(A Texan, SIConservative, and Whitfox have also made constructive suggestions in this vein here at Redstate. And Robert VerBruggen at The American Spectator recently made an interesting suggestion that would allow Giuliani to add some substance to his presently empty commitment to promote adoption, which could provide part of a solution to this problem.)
_____________________________________________________________
I cannot claim to know whether the suggestions above are more than what is necessary, or not enough, or even if they might be counterproductive in some way. I am certain, however, that Giuliani needs to take some steps in this direction and to clarify just what the practical implications of his positions would be. It is up to individual pro-lifers themselves to determine what they require.
To be sure, many of Giuliani's pro-life skeptics have stated their opposition to him in terms rather more categorical than such measures would be able to satisfy. But positions can soften, at least if someone is trying to soften them. If it were to become plausible to such people that the election of Giuliani would lead to the reversal of Roe v. Wade in the very near future, despite his pro-choice stance, then those who have vowed on these grounds never to vote for Giuliani would be placed in a very difficult position—difficult, but not unpleasant, since it is in their interest as pro-lifers that as many people as possible come closer to their position.
On the other hand, if Giuliani cannot or will not take any steps along the lines of those I have suggested, then it raises the question of why not, since most of these should be relatively painless for him to carry out, given the more charitable interpretation of his positions on these matters. Even the many pro-life supporters he currently has might reasonably begin to question their heretofore charitable interpretation of his position, if he refuses to provide them with any more evidence than he has already given.
Furthermore, even those of Giuliani's current supporters who care not a whit about the abortion issue per se would have reason to be troubled by a failure on his part to reach out to pro-lifers in any meaningful way, because it would contradict his reputation as an effective leader. Current polling indicates that the number of pro-lifers who object to his candidacy is large enough that it could severely affect his viability in the general election. If he fails to address this problem seriously, then one can only presume that he believes that it will magically disappear on its own. This is not leadership, but wishful thinking.
There is nothing preventing Giuliani from clarifying his positions on these and related matters. But absent such clarifications, neither is there anything preventing pro-life voters from being skeptical of his intentions, or worse.
Thanks! I was thinking of Santorum as solution of the problem of the particular constituency of hardcore pro-lifers who would bolt from a Giuliani-led party. He wouldn't win over any other voters, but I think that if a VP nominee can solve a single political problem for his ticket, then he's doing better than most.
As for McCain, Thompson, and some of the others you mention, they have the reputation of being reliable pro-lifers, but not leaders with respect to abortion. I don't think they would do any good with this particular constituency at the bottom of a Giuliani-led ticket, though they might be able to solve some other problem. They'd do much better with this group and many others if they were at the top of the ticket—which makes it rather fortunate that a couple of them are presently running.
...where I do believe that he would appoint a staunch pro-life running mate, I don't see Rudy doing any of the others. He has already rejected the label of "effectively pro-life".
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
It's conceivable (though unlikely) that he rejected that label so as to reserve the right to hit Romney, who has embraced that very term, on the charges of flip-floppery, even though his intent is to act in an effectively pro-life manner as president.
As for whether he would do any of the other things, I don't see why there should be any insurmountable obstacles to any of these—if, that is, we accept the premises his campaign is promoting as reasons for pro-lifers to support him. If he can't do anything like this, even though it would clearly be in his political interest, then that might be reason to doubt these premises. I'm not betting either way.
and obtained his endorsement says a lot about his policies. He is also getting very close to Huckabee by now, and that will help him a lot. I kind of like the idea of the Giuliani/Huckabee ticket, I think it could be a winner. Rudy is by now very well commited to working with the SoCons and making sure they will have a place in his administration. So all the people who criticize his pro-choice position are only fearmongering now, as they have no good arguments left. There is no good reason for SoCons to fear Rudy anymore.
...............................
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it."
--Rudy Giuliani
Robertson has been always been a joke who was only out for his own pocketbook. In 2001, he shocked the Christian community when he publicly defended China's one-child forced abortion policy on CNN, saying:
"Well, you know I don't agree with [abortion], but at the same time, they've got 1.2 billion people, and they don't know what to do. If every family over there was allowed to have three or four children, the population would be completely unsustainable. Right now, they run the risk of a tremendous unemployment. There are some antiquated factories that the government owns that have to be shut down that is going to put hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people out of work. And the leadership is like on a teeter-totter board, they can fall off if the population gets too restive. So, I think that right now they're doing what they have to do. I don't agree with the forced abortion, but I don't think the United States needs to interfere with what they're doing internally in this regard."
It later turned out, that this statement was made as he was negotiating some business with the Chinese government.
A year later, it came out that he had personally signed a joint-venture gold mine deal with Charles Taylor. In case you don't know, Taylor is a Liberian dictator, U.S. prison escapee, Libyan terrorist training camp graduate, human rights violator, and pillager of his own country and his neighbor, Sierra Leone. And, that's not the first anti-U.S. African dictator that Robertson with whom has personally done business.
He's jumping on board Rudy's bandwagon, because he thinks he will win and wants to be around to collect the spoils. Plus, on any other campaign, he'd just be one of many important evangelical supporters but, with Rudy, he's the only one, so the gets to have the limelight all to himself.
he is the guy who founded CBN, the Christian Coalition, and Regent U. He did more for the pro-life cause than almost anybody else (including all the SoCons on RedState who criticize Rudy). If he can be all that and still vote for Rudy, then so can you.
...............................
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it."
--Rudy Giuliani
This is the best thing I've seen written about Rudy and abortion to date.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
This sort of thoughtful commentary does a lot to make RedState worthwhile.
I would be interested to read the thoughts of people such as Neil and Leon who are leading thinkers among those who declare they won't vote for Rudy.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
As one of the most emphatic of RS anti-Rudy-ites, I can say that I would strongly consider voting for the guy if he did the kind of turnaround that you describe.
I agree with Finrod...this is absolutely the best analysis of Giuliani and abortion that I've seen, anywhere.
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
(And thanks to zuiko above, too, and to all the folks who've recommended this. I hate to be tedious, but I'm very gratified by these kind responses, especially given the high level of discourse here at Redstate.)
I'm inclined against Giuliani, too, to the point where I'd vote for Hillary in the general if he can't make any further effort to reach out on abortion. However, the consequences, if things got to that stage, would be so dire for both the party and the country that I think we should make every effort to find some common ground before then, or else to dispense with Giuliani if none can be found. I think that everything I brought up should be possible if Giuliani's been on the level about these matters so far. So let's see him back it up.
I know conventional wisdom says otherwise, but as is often said, people don't vote for the VP. He would matter to the SoCons, but most other people would still view the election as Clinton vs. Giuliani.
He would also help energize Republicans in PA, as we still love the guy, and Rudy has a shot at the state anyway.
He is also rock solid on the need to confront Islamic extremism. I have heard him speak, and he makes no bones about it.
I'm not sure he would take the spot if offered though. He's got something like six young kids.
The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.
I think that Brownback would make a marginally better one in this regard since the Specter/Toomey business might give some cynics an excuse to be cynical, and since Brownback is less of a lightning rod. But I do think that Santorum would do a lot of good, particularly in PA, which Giuliani seems to have his eye on anyway. Even though he lost pretty badly last time, he was elected twice in a state that never voted for a Republican president during his terms, which is a pretty remarkable political achievement for someone as conservative as he is. That has to count for something.
You're right, though, his kids might make him think twice about accepting.
You may be right when you say
which simply stated, "A right to abortion is not secured by this Constitution"—that is, it overturns Roe v. Wade but does nothing else. Such language would be in the interest of many groups. It would be advantageous to the Republican Party as a whole
The language of such a platform plank might well appeal widely, especially in the context you describe.
However, it is worth noting that James Taranto has argued that actually securing such a policy might have the effect of dividing Republicans while uniting Democrats. As long as Roe is in force it has the opposite effect.
Taranto wrote:
This is not to say that America has embraced the near-absolutist pro-life position that the Republican Party formally endorses. Most Americans are moderate or ambivalent on abortion, rejecting the extreme positions on either side. One reason Republicans have an advantage is that as long as Roe remains in effect--taking off the table any restriction that imposes an "undue burden" on a woman seeking to abort her pregnancy--Republicans are an extreme antiabortion party only in theory. When it comes to actual legislation, the GOP favors only modest--and popular--regulations. The Democrats, on the other hand, must defend such unpopular practices as partial-birth abortion, taxpayer-subsidized abortion, and abortions for 13-year-olds without their parents' knowledge.
For the full article see here.
Naturally, I realise (as does Taranto) that this is not really an argument against such a policy. Most pro-life activists understandably believe that abortion is a much bigger question than partisan advantage. It is, however, worth considering the possible consequences of a decision in order to develop strategies to deal with them.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Thank you for reminding me of that article. I read it back when it first came out, and it's an excellent piece of analysis.
I actually think that the fact that the Democrats might see a partisan advantage in this proposal is one of its biggest benefits. If they didn't, then there would never be any reason for any of them to support it, and the proposal would be as purely symbolic as the present HLA plank, only with weaker symbolism.
As you and Taranto note, undoing Roe would mean that the Democrats would no longer be forced to defend an extreme position, but it might force the Republicans to start doing just that. In addition, it might also present the Democrats with the benefit of defusing the process of judicial appointments. Leftist and center-left parties around the world have found it convenient to push their agenda through backdoor, undemocratic means—particularly the courts. This was also the case in the US—in fact, this is how we got Roe in the first place—but once the reaction against Roe took hold, this effort has stalled somewhat, and might at some future date be turned against the leftist and leftish agenda. To boot, this reaction has certainly handed the Republicans a number of elections, since the base rallies so strongly to the call of "judges!" A Democrat might reasonably come to think that taking Roe off the table would both remove an important rallying cry from their opponents' campaigns, thereby giving them an electoral advantage, and also divert attention from the process of judicial nominations, allowing them to enact their agenda through backdoor means.
(I'm not saying that many congressional Democrats would take to such a proposal today, but it's not difficult to imagine a set of circumstances in which such reasoning would start to make sense. And assuming an evenly divided Congress and near-unanimous support amongst Republicans, it would only take the support of around a third of the Democrats to pass it on to the states.)
But no Republican would ever push this proposal unless he saw some partisan advantage in it as well, and I think there are some that Republicans might see. Any worries about being forced to defend extreme positions could be mitigated by the fact that, under a federalist abortion regime, the degree or the very existence of any restrictions would be calibrated to public opinion in the several states. Voters nationwide would see that the Republican position on abortion can lead to a wide variety of outcomes, and a Republican candidate could therefore plausibly calibrate his own position in accordance with his political needs. The present, Fourteenth Amendment-based proposal for the HLA could still remain in the background as a long-term goal, but I think that public discourse would be dominated by the state debates, to the advantage of Republicans.
What's more, I think that to pass such a proposal, or even to come respectably close, would earn back from the social conservative base a great deal of loyalty and enthusiasm, both of which seem to be waning at the moment. Pro-lifers have been voting pretty consistently for Republicans for over thirty years, in the hopes that, at a minimum, the judges they appointed would undo Roe. It hasn't happened, and it's hard to imagine that they would continue with this strategy through its fortieth or fiftieth year unless this minimal achievement is accomplished. This could lead to serious problems for the GOP, since its electoral coalition relies so heavily on pro-lifers. But some progress in this regard could avert such a disaster and win their support in the very battles that the Democrats might assume would have no further interest for them—judges, e.g.
So this has just been a long way of saying, yes, you're quite right that it's important to consider all the possible political consequences of such a proposal. I'm sure I've only scratched the surface here, and there are a lot of uncertainties. But my point is that some of the bugs might turn out to be features.
Taking the abortion issue off the Federal table may very well demotivate a portion of the GOP base, however, I think Roe v. Wade is an evil decision and we should work to reverse it. Some people pro-abortion and pro-US COnstitution as well, think Roe v. Wade is an execration that deserves to be reversed.
I think the GOP needs to proceed with a certain honor here and get that decision reversed. Even if it does hamper our turnout over the abortion issue.
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
the ideal VP for him should be pro-life (as you assert) but also have a record of being pro-enforcement of the immigration laws (a two-fer). I think that disqualifies Huckabee and Brownback.
Rudy will only take these kinds of steps if he feels he has to to win the nomination -- since there is increasing doubt about that I'd say he just might do some of these things. The reason he hasn't gone further as of now is because he clearly sincerely believes that abortion is a fundamental, constitutional right. He personally contributed money to Planned Parenthood after all. If he can win the nomination by only altering his position in minor ways he will -- if he can't then he'll say whatever he feels like he must to win.
Just a couple of months ago on a CNN interview Rudy reaffirmed his belief that abortion is a Constitutional right and said that that's why he supports taxpayer funded abortions. He was also very recently in favor of partial-birth abortion. His aides quickly said that Rudy didn't mean it but I find that hard to believe considering that that's been his position his entire life. I find it quite easy to believe that Rudy realized he made a mistake and wanted to cover himself politically.
Rudy promises to appoint strict constructionists but has been quite vague about what that means. He could unconditionally say that it means people who don't make up new constitutional rights like abortion -- but then people would be able to look at his own record of judicial appointments and actions speak louder than words.
Rudy gets lots of respect from some because of his supposed candor -- I can't count the number of times I've heard "you may not agree with him on everything but at least you know where he stands." In fact, the opposite is true. I will give the Rudy campaign some props for doing such a good job of putting one over on the GOP -- people continue to believe his straightforward straight-shooter persona despite his painfully obtuse and sometimes contradictory statements he's made on issues from abortion to guns to same-sex marriage to illegal immigration within the course of the campaign.
The reason he hasn't gone further as of now is because he clearly sincerely believes that abortion is a fundamental, constitutional right.
I think it is simpler than that. I doubt this is an issue that motivates him strongly one way or the other. There are things he is passionate about - winning GWOT, defeating crime, cutting taxes, school choice - and things that he is not passionate about.
On questions that don't move him much - like abortion - he would probably rather avoid addressing them at all. He would simply rather be talking about something else. I think he will do what he has to to win, but is thinking partly of the nomination and partly of the general election.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I agree with you. Giuliani has never been a pro-choice activist. He is aligned with conservatives and motivated by conservative causes, but he differs on some of the social issues. You can easily tell that he is motivated by the issues you listed, just as you can tell that McCain is motivated on the War on Terror and campaign finance, Brownback is motivated on life, Tancredo is motivated on immigration, Tommy Thompson is motivated on health care, Hunter is motivated on protectionism and the GWOT, Paul is motivated on the Constitution and Iraq War, Fred Thompson is motivated on federalism, etc. I'm not really sure what Romney's greatest motivation is... maybe reforming government like it's a company that has been taken over by a private equity corporation.
McCain is motivated on the War on Terror and campaign finance,
and climate change, and McCain.
Brownback is motivated on life,
Check
Tancredo is motivated on immigration,
Check
Tommy Thompson is motivated on health care,
Check. So is Huckabee.
Hunter is motivated on protectionism and the GWOT,
And he is conservative on exactly one of these.
Paul is motivated on the Constitution and Iraq War,
But can't tell the difference between the Constitution and a speech George Washington once gave.
Fred Thompson is motivated on federalism, etc.
Check.
I'm not really sure what Romney's greatest motivation is... maybe reforming government like it's a company that has been taken over by a private equity corporation.
Sounds like a fair summary to me. And, given his background, I think he would probably do it rather well. My biggest area of doubt about Romney is simply this - I am sure he would run government better than most, if not all, his opponents. I am just not sure I want government to be well run.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I'm sure he's more motivated by terrorism than abortion but saying school choice motivates him more seems like a stretch to me...
If Rudy really didn't care then I think he would have modified his position when he decided to run for president. He knew he couldn't completely change his position because his stance is too well known and it would hurt his perception as a straight-shooter. But he certainly could have changed his views of partial-birth abortion, parental notification, taxpayer funding -- he didn't immediately do this but only slowly started flipping on these issues when his support started hurting him.
I also think the fact that he donated money to planned parenthood and has spoken at their conferences supports my assertion that he's a true believer in abortion rights.
I think you might be right when you say, "Rudy will only take these kinds of steps if he feels he has to to win the nomination." But if so, it's a pity, because he might be able to win the nomination without doing so, still leaving the dangers of pro-lifers defecting in the general election unanswered. Giuliani, with his assurances that he personally opposes abortion and his promises to appoint strict constructionists, has satisfied a large number of pro-life Republicans—possibly at once enough to win the primaries but not enough to win the general. The best way to ensure the unity of the party in the general election is to canvas for votes through the whole party in the primaries. I do hope, however, that you're right that he's beginning to worry and so might take the appropriate measures.
I won't address his motivations, whether he "sincerely believes that abortion is a fundamental, constitutional right," since these proposals are meant in no small part to test his motivations. If he can take some steps like these, then he might not believe this. But if he cannot, even when it is in his political interest to do so, then we can assume that he does believe this.
He's probably weighing the options right now. Most likely he initially was hoping he could win without the pro-life crowd and was thinking that his pro-choice stand would help him get independent and some dems in the general. Maybe now he's worried about a 3rd party movement more than he's worried about not winning over enough independents and will flip on his stance accordingly.
But more importantly, I've got to say how cool it is to have both chesterarthur and jamespolk commenting on this thread. I eagerly await the opinions of williammckinley and martinvanburen. :)
I think a good Amendment to support would be one that says, "The power to set policy on abortion is reserved for the states and the people." Rather than just sounding anti-abortion by saying, "The right to an abortion is not secured", it would be ambiguous, merely federalist and in favor of local control. The proposal that abortion policy should be set at the state level sounds much less threatening to people who do not have very strong feelings either way (most people). Still, it would overturn Roe v. Wade, which is the goal after all.
I assume that Giuliani has explicitly endorsed Roe v. Wade in the past. If not, he could say that he simply favors these kinds of decisions to be set at the state level. Since he already committed a mini-flip flop by coming out against partial birth abortion, he could also have come out against second trimester abortions using the argument that he is still pro-choice, but what good reason is there to abort a 5 month old fetus when you could have done it months earlier? This way he would be to the right of current abortion policy and been able to better attract pro-lifers.
I should have been advising Giuliani. Oh well.
There is no Tenth Amendment. Nor any Second Amendment. Pop by any law school. I am sure they can give you a copy of the operative version, complete with penumbrae and emanations, but without the outdated amendments.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Please forgive me - I will do my best to overcome my ignorance. Maybe reading Dailykos for a few months will help my understanding.
Seriously, what kind of a fool would really believe in that living Constitution garbage? I understand the hardcore leftists using it, but why would the average person buy it? I guess its because they don't care about politics like we do, and so take the MSM and their liberal education at face value.
Thankfully. Just imagine what life would be like without it.
Did anyone see The Onion piece on Third Amendment rights?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
This is the best I have seen yet. If Rudy would follow through on some of your suggestions, and give me reason to trust him on RKBA, I could vote for the man without hating myself.
Rudy does seem to have some work to do with respect to guns and (as mentioned above) immigration, in addition to abortion. But if he's serious about winning, I'm sure he can do what needs to be done.
The idea of a Constitutional amendment to return abortion to the states is equally as impossible as a human life amendment. There are almost no Congressmen or women who would support abortion being legal but then leave it up to state legislatures. That is a VERY rare poition to take.
Only among those who oppose abortion is there significant disagreement about whether it could or should be up to states. That is why the idea of an amendment to leave it to states becomes even less possible. I think just about any pro-life Congressman or woman would be okay with the idea. However, no fewer would likely support a human life amendment.
A far better idea would be a do-over of the fourteenth amendment. We could kill a whole lot of birds with one stone. We could fix immigration, marriage, and almost all the improper Supreme Court rulings issued in the past half century.
As far as Rudy goes, I would like to know that he would not be elevating the NYC judges he appointed as mayor and that he would not appoint people like them. I would also like to know that he would actively oppose any attempts by the Republican party to view his election as a change of attitude on the part of voters, at least at the state level.
I would also like to know that he would actively oppose any attempts by the Republican party to view his election as a change of attitude on the part of voters, at least at the state level.
I think you've hit here on what a lot of people are worrying about. Giuliani would be well served to address this question.
Regarding the Hatch-Eagleton language, I disagree with you that there would be no pro-choice support for such a measure, for reasons that include those in my response to Quentin Langley above. Even those politicians who are personally happy with the status quo have a number of constituents who are not, and whose support might be won (or not lost) by coming to a position acceptable to both, if ideal to neither.
I'm intrigued by your idea about redoing the Fourteenth Amendment. What do you have in mind?
The conduct and voting record in the Senate in particular has shown no one who supports abortion would support returning it to states. If they did, we wouldn't have the current problem with judicial nominations. It's not a part of their overall philosophy anyway. Also, polls have consistently shown it is very unpopular among the voters, especially the ones who support abortion.
I think the vast majority of Americans do not really see much difference in making most laws state versus making them federal.
I say we just repeal section 1 of the fourteenth amendment until and unless there is something that has the support to pass. It was only ratified in the 1800's under duress, and I don't think it would have enough support to pass today in its current form given what the courts have done with it.
There are any number of Republican Senators and other politicians who support only moderate restrictions on abortion, who could therefore be fairly classed as moderately pro-choice, but which restrictions would run afoul of Roe—a ban only in the last three or six months of pregnancy, say. There are surely a number of Democratic politicians with analogous views, but who are constrained from voicing them due to the popular misperception that a reversal of Roe would entail the immediate criminalization of all abortions, the correction of which would be one of the major benefits of proposing such an amendment in the first place. And if this misperception were widely corrected, then there would be great political incentive for other, unambiguously pro-choice Democrats to moderate their position on abortion somewhat, but the only way for most Democrats to moderate their position in a meaningful way (and I am under no illusion that they would not do all they can to moderate themselves in a meaningless way, but voters do occasionally see through such efforts) would be for them to turn against Roe.
As for repealing Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, I can't imagine how that would ever happen, nor what good it would do. Even without this in the Constitution, creative jurists would simply turn to the scents of the emanations of the penumbras of other vaguely-worded passages of the document to get where they wanted to go. At the same time, it could do some harm to the legitimate and noble purpose for which it was passed in the first place.
this part of the platform is only going to increase suspicion of Rudy. I think the HLA is meaningless, in that it's not going to get passed in this generation, if ever. But others obviously disagree; look at how Fred was hit for dissing it. That wasn't just primary partisanship.
There's little point in Rudy investing effort in replacing one hopeless amendment with another, just to get criticized for it. The other measures suggested would be far more meaningful.
You're quite right that any change in the abortion plank, on its own, would only do harm to the Giuliani campaign. But I'm imagining it as part of a larger effort, which could turn it from a liability to a benefit. Still, a note to any Giuliani staffers turning to the Redstate diaries for ideas on how to shore up your campaign: If you take my advice, DON'T start with the amendment thing! (I'm presuming, of course, that if they're smart enough to take my advice, then they're smart enough to read down through the comments. :))
As for the merits of the amendment thing, I'm obviously fond of the idea I put forth, and I've noted in other comments that I think both that it's feasible and that it could present some benefits even short of actual passage. But my point here is less to promote this particular idea than to get Giuliani to a table with some pro-life leaders and have them discuss language that could be acceptable to both sides. If this isn't acceptable, or if there's something better out there, then they should make every effort to find something that can work for everybody. Any agreement they might come to would be better than the prospect of Giuliani campaigning on a platform that he can't even pretend to endorse, assuming that such an agreement is substantial rather than mere boilerplate.
On the other hand, of course, if they can't find any common ground on matters such as this, or if they don't even bother trying, then that fact itself would be meaningful and might serve to convince Giuliani's current pro-life supporters that their support has been misplaced.
What some people may not realize is that Rudy would not have been inconsistent if he had said Roe/Casey should be overruled from the beginning. He believed that in 1989 when he was campaigning for mayor.
Although the bigger knock on Santorum is that he lost by 20 points in a swing state as an incumbent. He is more polarizing that Bush or Clinton.
Brownback, Thompson, Sanford, Jeb, Barbour, Pawlenty, Romney, or McCain would all be pro-lifers with some history of winning over voters.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard