Credible Threats

I agree with everyone who says that James Dobson's threat to back a third party if Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination on a pro-choice platform is mostly intended as an intervention in the primary. Dobson wants Giuliani to lose the nomination. Alternatively, he wants Giuliani to win the nomination only after shifting his position. But I don't think Dobdon's bluffing. Scott Lemieux thinks he is:

If push came to shove, though -- granting that a pro-choice Republican winning would be a disaster for the forced pregnancy minority -- I'm pretty sure that Dobson will not be indifferent about whether Giuliani or Clinton makes at least the next four years of federal judicial appointments.

To me that's backwards. The pro-life movement is going to act to safeguard its interests as a movement. Judges don't really matter to that. But if a Republican winning the White House on a pro-choice platform would be a crushing blow to the movement's power. The best thing is for a pro-life Republican to win the White House. But for a pro-choice Republican to win is worse than for a pro-choice Democrat to win, because it would undermine the narrative that abortion criminalization is a winning electoral issue for conservative politicians. If Rudy gets the nomination as a pro-choicer, I think Dobson et. al. have no choice but to try to throw the race to the Democrats, in order to make the argument that Republicans can only win if they run pro-life campaigns.

Comments

Dobson's game could be this:

If the religious right largely sits out 2008, a bunch of moderates might be induced to vote for Giuliani who would otherwise be unwilling to vote for the same candidate as the religious right. Then, when Giuliani loses narrowly, Dobson et al. can claim (falsely) that with his followers in the game, Giuliani would have won.

Posted by Mr. Noah | October 6, 2007 10:29 AM

If Guilani gets the nod and various people stay home (and they will stay home given the choice between a center-left hawk and a ... crazy center-left hawk) then Hill gets it in something of a landslide, since the entire Washington establishment will come out to support Hill.

This will be followed by discovery when a landslide isn't a landslide, since her approval ratings will start low and head lower.

max
['We're still in the race to the bottom.']

Posted by max | October 6, 2007 10:50 AM

That's right Matt, Giuliani's candidacy is a much bigger threat to the pro-life movemement than to their policy goals. In some ways it may be an existential threat to Dobson and Co.

Posted by AJ | October 6, 2007 10:59 AM

It has always been in the interest of the leaders (read demagogues) of the "pro-life" movement that abortion remain legal. Dobson's own bedrock principles likely don't extent much past self-aggrandizement, and letting Hillary win while heroically championing a third-party moral crusade can only redound to his personal glory, not to mention another 8 years of voice-in-the-wilderness lifeblood for his legions of disciples.

Posted by Bill | October 6, 2007 11:01 AM

If Rudy gets the nomination as a pro-choicer, I think Dobson et. al. have no choice but to try to throw the race to the Democrats

Of course. No doubt they will accomplish this goal by buying TV ads in which Dobson appears personally and says, "Despite my years-running demonization of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party, and despite the party's continuing pro-choice position, I think all good Christians should vote for her."

Posted by James Gary | October 6, 2007 11:10 AM

I still think this thread is giving too much credence to the notion that Guliani is going to get the nomination. It's still a huge assumption. The last polls I saw had him trailing in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Surely, that makes some difference. And when the election days get closer, he's going to have to explain to the Republican base that his record includes pro-choice views, opposition to NAFTA, opposition to welfare reform, support for sanctuary cities, support for gun control, and support (to some degree) for gay rights. And then there's his personal life, which involves infidelity, cross dressing, multiple marriages, and strained relations with his kids.

Given all that, it's hard to imagine why the pro-life crowd can't find a Republican candidate of their own to support. They need to stop whining, take Guiliani down, and find someone worthy of their support to support for nomination. The party that managed to "swiftboat" Kerry about Vietnam should have little trouble taking on Guiliani.

Posted by Unreal Veal | October 6, 2007 11:17 AM

If Rudy scores the GOP nod, Dobson and the rest of the fetus people must follow through on their threat or risk becoming irrelevant in GOP politics. If Dobson reverses field once Rudy is nominated, the GOP will feel, quite rightly, that the hard core Christian right now can be taken for granted and that any more warnings from that side that a certain candidate isn't "Christian enough" will be greeted with mordant snickering from the the GOP.

Posted by Chuchundra | October 6, 2007 11:26 AM

I don't think Dobson is as influential as people think. He may be able to raise and back an anti-choice third party candidate if Giuliani gets the nod, but the so-called "values voters," however pollsters classify that group, love Giuliani. The "war on terror" has become a "values" issue. It's that nonsensical view about the Muslims taking over Europe. Real Samuel Huntington-type stuff, clash of civilizations and all that jazz.

And this problem for Giuliani is easy to remedy. He might not be anti-choice, but a quick behind-the-scenes assurance to Dobson about the judges he'll appoint, and all Dobson does is say to his followers, "Vote Rudy, I mean, after all, the Muslims are taking over Europe and we have to prepare for the clash of civilizations."

Posted by Matthew Struhar | October 6, 2007 11:35 AM

I think Scott's right on this--Dobson will back off this bluff if Rudy is nominated. There will be two, maybe three occasions in the next administration when the president's views on abortion are relevant: when Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg retire. Justices Roberts and Alito haven't officially weighed in yet, but the chances are pretty good that Dobson only needs the president to throw him a bone once to get five anti-Roe votes. Chances are a lot better for Rudy doing that than Hillary. If I'm Dobson, I think I can stomach a nominally pro-choice Republican (who's already sworn up and down he'll nominate, wink wink, "strict constructionist" judges) for the sake of getting that one appointment I need. (The backroom deal would likely be: we'll go with you this time as long as you agree to appoint a pro-lifer when Justice Stevens steps down. Renege and we'll be coming after you in the '12 primary with guns blazing.)

Giuliani is an anomaly among Republicans in many ways--there simply aren't a lot of pro-choice Republicans with any name ID. To the limited extent that federal abortion policy will even matter after Roe goes down (the sweeping bans won't get through any Congress that we're likely to see soon), the slate of Republican primary candidates in future election years will be dominated by pro-lifers no matter what happens with Rudy this year.

Posted by Thrax | October 6, 2007 11:59 AM

Interesting. Of course, this works the other way too, i.e., if a pro-life Democrat won the Democratic nomination, or even spoke at the convention, that would be a disaster for the pro-choice movement, because it would undermine their narrative. In fact, this general pattern explains why special interest groups in each party make such a fetish out of demanding pledges of utter fealty from primary candidates. I won't hold my breath waiting for Yglesias to make this point, though I confidently expect some commentators to explain that it would in fact be a disaster, rationally and objectively, if a pro-choice Democrat were permitted to do anything.

Posted by y81 | October 6, 2007 12:05 PM

I think this thread of conversation gives too much credence to the fact that Giuliani is pro-choice. Giuliani was pro-choice when it was a necessity for getting elected in New York. He hasn't made a Romney-ian about switch probably because he knows it would look idiotic, but he's in no way campaigning for pro-choice beliefs or using that as a reason to vote for him. He's just downplaying it, and when elected, will appoint the same pro-life bureaucrats that any other Republican would.

You're right that Dobson that doesn't want Giuliani to win the primary, but it's clearly not the end of the world (for them) if he becomes President.

Posted by Tony V | October 6, 2007 12:08 PM

Unreal Veal, you undermine your argument by throwing in "cross-dressing". Even those yokels in the "heartland" can distinguish between being a transvestite or a drag queen and dressing in women's clothes for a joke. Some of those yokels have even done it, for a party or a sports event or because of a bet, and no one thinks less of them for it.

Is there any evidence that anyone cares that Rudy has worn a dress?

Posted by KCinDC | October 6, 2007 12:19 PM

Rudy is trying to be on both sides of the issue--saying he hates abortion while saying he supports its legality, saying he'd appoint strict constructionists while admitting that strict constructionism doesn't necessarily mean that he'd appoint anti-Roe justices. I honestly don't know what he'd do, but if Dobson, et al. support a third party candidate next year, they're not going to get their phone calls returned when President Giuliani is honing his short list to replace Justice Stevens.

I do find the whole right wing phenomenon interesting in this country--even though they've wielded immense power over the past few decades, they seem locked into a permanent minority mindset. It seems to me that they're more comfortable as bomb-throwing outsiders than the alternative.

Posted by Lev | October 6, 2007 12:24 PM

"I don't think Dobson is as influential as people think. He may be able to raise and back an anti-choice third party candidate if Giuliani gets the nod, but the so-called "values voters," however pollsters classify that group, love Giuliani. The "war on terror" has become a "values" issue. It's that nonsensical view about the Muslims taking over Europe. Real Samuel Huntington-type stuff, clash of civilizations and all that jazz."

However, when pollsters ask Southern conservatives about their views on Giuliani and then tell them he's pro-choise, their views on him flip.

Posted by Reality Man | October 6, 2007 12:45 PM

"but if Dobson, et al. support a third party candidate next year, they're not going to get their phone calls returned when President Giuliani is honing his short list to replace Justice Stevens."

Primarily because Guliani won't be President in that case; It's going to be hard enough for a Republican to win the Presidency in 2008, even with the whole party pulling for him. Doing it a laundry list of Republican interest groups sitting out the election is virtually impossible. I say 'virtually', because it might be possible if Democrats similarly handicapped themselves. But I don't see much chance of a right to work, pro-life NRA member getting the Democratic nomination.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | October 6, 2007 1:03 PM

Unreal Veal is dead on the mark in noting that MY has come to believe Rudy, "Mr. 9/11" is inevitable as Hillary is - when he is clearly not.

Rudy polls well for three reasons - he is (1)natural, self deprecating; (2)plays the tough guy to that faction of the population that thinks the country is falling apart, without looking too deep at Rudys positions on guns, abortion, gays, and sanctuary cities; (3)Simply because the mass media gave him years of uncritical adulation as the Hero serving the Cult of Victimhood after 9/11 - which makes Rudy the beneficiary of what would have cost other candidates 60-80 million in advertising.

Dobson and his theocrats are cancerous and hopefully 2008 marks their exit from politics. They only came into existence on the single issue of abortion and like single issue MADD, became more and more extreme over the years. Rudy isn't the only one they find lacking with their litmus tests. Romney is the one that they openly say they will not vote for, because, like a Jew, his religion is suspect.
People are just waiting for Romney to give their intolerance a good blasting over bigoted religious litmus tests.
Nor are Dobson and his nuts coming in behind McCain or Huckabee or Thompson because they are "lacking Christians".....the dimbulbs would probably have declared Reagan unacceptable because he was divorced, not religious, and signed California's abortion law...

I think Dobson et. al. have no choice but to try to throw the race to the Democrats, in order to make the argument that Republicans can only win if they run pro-life campaigns.

If they do, they do not get the strict constructionists all the Republicans pledge to nominate, which will finally overturn the awful Roe overreach the Court did which has poisoned our politics for 35 years....they will get Hillary and Ruth Bader Ginsburg sitting down over tea with Barbara Boxer, Pelosi, Feinstein, and Schumer and deciding on who replaces Souter, Stevens, Scalia, and Ginsburg.

(Of course a cynic would say the LAST thing the fetus people want is Roe overturned because all the churchgoer contributions to well-fed Religious Right leaders would dry up. But if we get so close to getting the runaway activist Court under control and blow it from Religious Right sabotage...the Christian extremists can expect to be run out of the Republican Party like the Birchers were as the Republicans start a 10-year rebuilding phase after the George Bush catastrophe.)

Posted by Chris Ford | October 6, 2007 1:07 PM

"If they do, they do not get the strict constructionists all the Republicans pledge to nominate,"

They don't get that if Guliani wins with their support, either. There's no way in hell Guliani, with his track record, is going to be nominating strict constructionists. His claims to the contrary don't pass the laugh test.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | October 6, 2007 1:23 PM

My take is that this type of speculation also takes the religious right too seriously. I thought these "churches" first became involved in politics in a big way when Jimmy Carter threatened to use the IRS to investigate the tax exemptions of some of the more dubious religious organizations. They are mostly part of the Republican machine now.

Dobson himself may be sincere, but he isn't going to take many of his colleagues with him.

Posted by Ed | October 6, 2007 1:24 PM

There's no way in hell Guliani, with his track record, is going to be nominating strict constructionists. His claims to the contrary don't pass the laugh test.

I'm not sure what track record that is. Of course Giuliani is pro-choice and pro-gay-rights (I'm not sure how deep those principles go, of course). He's also pro-business and pro-executive power. When he puts together a short list of conservative, pro-business judges sympathetic to claims of broad executive power, I doubt he finds a lot of reliably pro-choice judges. Maybe he'll make sure his nominee is in fact pro-choice, but it's not crazy to think that he'd appease Dobson, and make things easier for himself in the '12 primary, by choosing, say, Mike McConnell or Miguel Estrada.

This is Rudy, after all. Any principles he's got are likely to come a distant second to "put, and keep, Rudy in power."

Posted by Thrax | October 6, 2007 1:57 PM

I don't even see any reason that Dobson wouldn't actually prefer a Clinton presidency to Giuliani on the merits. There's really not a single issue that Dobson cares about where Giuliani is to the right of Hillary.

The question is what credible socially conservative Republican will actually break with the party to run as a third party candidate? I don't see Brownback or Huckabee as likely to do it. Maybe someone like Ashcroft?

Posted by right | October 6, 2007 2:07 PM

I think that there are two reasons for GOPers supporting Giuliani:

(1) The sense that he will continue an aggressive, neoconnish policy in the Middle East (after all, Norman Podhoretz is an advisor of his.

(2) As "ziel" says, he told Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to "eat s**t." As a lot of white people (the GOP base) felt that Messrs. Jackson and Sharpton support criminals (when they were minority) over their victims, this made him very popular.

Posted by Glaivester | October 6, 2007 2:52 PM

Mr Veal doubts Rudy can convert his high polling numbers into actual votes in the Repub primaries. I agree completely. I'd add that actual delegates and their votes in the convention might be even harder for Hizzoner since the Repubs are more heirarchical and managed from the top than Dems are--and the powers-that-be in their party seem to listen closely to the Theocrats.

Mr y81 states (sarcastically I s'pose) that "it would be a disaster...if a prolife Democrat were permitted to do anything." To which I reply: "...like become US Senator from Pennsylvania?"

And to all the commenters who were not born and raised a Fundamental Christian in the heart of Dixie I have to point out the counter-intuitive ways that religion affects our theocratic brothers. They really think that voting for Rudy will result in moral contamination. Making the moral poison worse (as they would feel) is that he is sort of APOSTATE, being a Repub and professing unacceptable doctrine. Their only option should he surprise us all and be nominated, is to leave the GOP at least temporarily. No bargains, no deals.

Of course their 3d party would guarantee a Dem victory. They know this and regret it. But the issue is not victory, it is purity. Southern Christians have voted with bootleggers to keep localities 'dry' for years; they know what they are doing--they just can't help doing it.

Posted by JohnMcC | October 6, 2007 3:39 PM

Giuliani won't win the nomination. To the extent that straw polls and the like allow us to estimate voter enthusiasm (and by extension voter turnout potential) for different candidates, Giuliani comes in pretty low. Some of the polling reflect this, too - Giuliani is one of the few candidates who loses percentage among likely caucusgoers in Iowa (versus just plain old R voters). When voter turnout in a primary election runs around 20%, differences in turnout loom pretty large.
Then too, no one has yet gone negative on him for his character defects. I'm guessing that Romney has some nasty attack ads in reserve if he feels like he's going to lose NH or Iowa. So far it's been pretty civil between him and Romney (just sniping on taxes), but Romney can effectively go nuclear by contrasting his family history with Giulani's if he likes.

Posted by bbartlog | October 6, 2007 5:29 PM

If Dobson were bluffing, it's odd he'd go into print on a prominent op-ed page.

If Dobson is serious about stopping Giuliani--and he is--he has two options.
a. Try to get Huckabee out of single digits.
b. Accept a Mormon nominee and try to lock him into doing what he currently says he will do.
(Thompson is not reliably conservative and a sure loser.)

Posted by Lord God Omniscient | October 6, 2007 7:39 PM

I assume that Dobson started out with his passionate beliefs and parlayed them into a very nice living, not the other way around.

Being "born again" is a very apt metaphor for the tranformative Christian religious experience because without an act of God, people seldom change their mind about much of anything.

So I doubt Dobson would support Democrats. The best possible outcome would be for Dobson focus less on politics and more on the family, or something.

Posted by Jalmari | October 6, 2007 7:45 PM

I would argue that a lot of Christians corrupted themselves by voting for Bush. The act of voting for him puts someone in a position where their first instinct is to defend that choice. Even now, you can see Christians jum through hoops and tie themselves in knots to convince others (actually, mostly themselves) that the Iraqi invasion was just, that the Administration never authorized torture, and even if they did, it's OK.

I suspect a Giuiani presidency would lead to similar rationalizations.

Posted by JohnMcG | October 8, 2007 8:46 AM