Power

Steve Benen echoes my thoughts on why religious right leaders are likely to mount a third party bid if Rudy Giuliani becomes the Republican nominee. Kevin Drum says:

This sounds right to me, though there's a good counterargument: judges. Dobson might be pissed, but what he really cares about is judicial appointments, and he knows that even Giuliani will appoint judges that he likes. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, by contrast, certainly won't. So in the end, even if Rudy gets the GOP nomination, he'll swallow hard and endorse him.

It's important to distinguish between two cases here. One is that Giuliani is going to be looking for judges who'll uphold unlimited executive power, unrestrained corporate greed, and be unsympathetic to criminal defendants and that judges who hold their views are, statistically speaking, likely to issue more Dobson-friendly rulings on sex-and-death issues than are Clinton or Obama judges. I think that's clearly true, but key religious right leaders can't afford to be persuaded by it. A power broker needs to be seen to have power, and vague promises to appoint strict constructionists coming from a pro-choice, pro-gay, twice divorces lapsed catholic don't seem to me to demonstrate any particular clout on the part of religious right leaders.

Now Rudy has flirted with something more drastic, namely an explicit promise to only appoint justices who'll vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Rudy could point out that pro-lifers have never gotten a promise like that from their pro-life GOP nominees, and could note that Ronald Reagan (Kennedy, O'Connor), George H.W. Bush (Souter), and George W. Bush (Harriet Miers) have all tried to put unreliable votes on the bench.

That, it seems to me, would have to be good enough for Dobson or anyone else. Rudy would be blatantly kowtowing, all the other candidates would need to follow suit, and the pro-life movement would have demonstrated its clout. That would create problems for Giuliani in a general election, but nothing like the nightmare of a third party challenge. So why doesn't Rudy do it? My guess is he's ornery and doesn't like the idea of kowtowing. But from the perspective of a Dobson, that's precisely the problem.

Comments

Yes, Matthew, seeing that Congress is allowed to engage in "greed" regulation is one of the important roles of the Supreme Court. Sheesh.

Posted by Will Allen | October 9, 2007 8:44 PM

So why doesn't Rudy do it?

Because, unlike with his 2nd amendment flip-flop, I don't think he credibly can use the "9-11 changed everything" excuse for switching his famously long held views on abortion and gay rights.

So if he does an abortion flip-flop, not only will no one believe him but he opens himself up to "multiple choice mitt" style mockery - from everyone, including his primary opponents.

Best just to stick to his guns while speaking in pro-life code every chance he gets.

Posted by SoCalJustice | October 9, 2007 8:47 PM

Matt,

You've made it pretty clear how you feel about Hizoner, but on this issue you might want to consider giving the man some credit.

"[P]ro-choice, pro-gay, twice divorces lapsed catholic" might represent all that is unholy to Dobson and Co, but for you, for me, and for most of your readers, none of those is particularly problematic.

Pro-choice and pro-gay are in fact admirable positions, particularly for a Republican front-runner. All of us who care about these issues from the liberal (dare I say correct?) side have been hoping for years that a pro-choice republican would have the courage to face down the Christian Right.

It is a huge step forward that one is doing so, and we should be cheering him on every step of the way.

If you can't credit your political opponents with any virtues, under any circumstances, even when they take politically problematic stands that you agree with, what does that say about your intellectual honesty? How can we (your readers) trust your interpretation of events to be guided by more that partisanship?

Posted by heedless | October 9, 2007 9:05 PM

"Yes, Matthew, seeing that Congress is allowed to engage in "greed" regulation is one of the important roles of the Supreme Court"

Exactly! Damn that Congress and their specious anti-trust laws! It all started with that socialist Teddy Roosevelt. If they'd just listened to one well-informed Hollywood screenwriter we wouldn't be in this mess.

"All of us who care about these issues from the liberal (dare I say correct?) side have been hoping for years that a pro-choice republican would have the courage to face down the Christian Right."

Credit it due upon actions. Anyone can mouth the "correct" words. Should I give credit to Bush for being a "compassionate" conservative? Partisan or not, I'm not holding my breath that Rudy will stand up for anything other that a unitary presidency.

Posted by Rihilism | October 9, 2007 9:21 PM

All of us who care about these issues from the liberal (dare I say correct?) side have been hoping for years that a pro-choice republican would have the courage to face down the Christian Right.

Courage? A bit early to be crediting Giuliani with courage. There's little or no evidence he's "facing down" anything. He's clearly extenuating.

Posted by Bill | October 9, 2007 9:30 PM

I predict some Kabuki theater. If one of the pro-choice Republicans like Romney or Giuliani wins Dobson will harrumph about ungodly politicians and renew the quit threat. The nominee (who has been pretending to be antichoice for a year or so now) will meet Dobson give a moving speech about how Dobson has led him to the true light of God or some such nonsense. Dobson will then say he accepts the nominee as antichoice and urge his supporters to vote for him.

Of course the nominee will figure out a way to keep abortion legal if he manages to win. Even Dobson wouldn't want it truly banned because that would be the end of his political movement when people really had to deal with the consequences of a real abortion ban. The new President will figure a way to "make progress" on the abortion front without banning it (just like Bush) so Dobson can claim to have gotten some results. Eight years from now, the Kabuki will be repeated for the next Presidential cycle.

Posted by curtadams | October 9, 2007 9:35 PM

So why doesn't Rudy do it? My guess is he's ornery and doesn't like the idea of kowtowing.

Or, maybe at heart he favors abortion rights, and would just as soon not allow states the option to restrict or ban it. You wouldn't have to be a crazy person for thinking that this might actually be the case, given his past, rather enthusiastic support for Planned Parenthood and similar abortion rights organizations. I kinda think it doesn't make sense any other way. After all, there exist at least a few supporters (perhaps lukewarm ones) of abortion rights who -- despite their position that abortion should remain legal -- nonetheless wouldn't have much of a problem returning it to the states via an overturning of Roe. And Rudy can't even get on board with this sort of moderate-ism.

Or, maybe, in Hillary Clinton fashion, his eyes remain fixed firmly on the prize (The White House -- not merely the nomination) and he figures his only hope at victory is some truly Clintonesque triangulation. And so he wants to leave himself the option of running as far as possible "to the left" in a general election to give him a shot in some of the blue states. It's hard to say, but otherwise it would seem a political no-brainer to toss the socialcons at least a bone or two by promising to nominate Roe-haters.

Posted by Jasper | October 9, 2007 9:55 PM

There is no meat on these bones! Where's the organization that will get this candidate on the ballot in all fifty states? Where's the fundraisers or policy wonks? I see none of this and frankly, it's getting pretty late in the game. We'll likely know the two major party candidates by February of next year. That's only five months away. Are you suggesting Matt that Dobson will wait until Guiliani is the nominee before getting any of this started? Sorry, I don't believe he could even get his candidate on half the state ballots if he waits until Feb. '08. No, Dobson knows what every Republican who is paying attention knows. This ain't gonna be their year. He knows after November of '08, the Republican party will be in shambles and he's doing his best to distance his movement from the disaster he sees coming down the trail. Dobson is going to contend Republican lost because they failed to follow his advice. Smart politics really. He not only wants Guliani to win the nomination, he's depending on it.

Posted by ny nick | October 9, 2007 10:14 PM

Matt, you missing something big here. If Giuliani wins the nomination, evangelicals aren't going to be motivated to vote for a pro-chocie, pro-gay President. So they won't vote. Giuliani is in trouble even with their votes, so they might not impact the Presidential election. But what they could really hurt is Republicans in the Senate. Evangelicals staying home could get Democrats 60 votes. So in order to keep that from happening, it maybe worth running a 3rd party to keep enough evangelicals voting Republican down ticket to keep up the current filibuster forever Senate going.

Posted by Rob | October 9, 2007 10:40 PM

Don't be so sure about the GOP nominee being known early. It might end up as a convention catfight.

With McCain dead in the water and Thompson fading the race looks like it is between Giuliani and Romney. But don't count out the possibility that the wingnut vote plus disgruntled anti-Giuliani types putting ultra-loon Ron Paul into play as a late breaking spoiler.

If either Mitt or Rudy emerge from the early contests as the clear winner then its all over and the later states will snap into line. If however they are still neck and neck a different dynamic takes over, Republicans who are not that thrilled by either choice on offer can vote Ron Paul in the hope that a brokered convention might throw up a more electoraly palatable option.

Given Rudy's past history of pandering to anyone who can deliver votes, not least the Provisional IRA, there can be no doubt that he would go Pro-Life in a foetal heartbeat if only he could do it in a barely believable way. Problem for Rudy is that he can't, not without some cataclysmic road to damascus like conversion that would render him a laughing stock for the general election.

Posted by PHB | October 9, 2007 11:01 PM

Matt, you missing something big here. If Giuliani wins the nomination, evangelicals aren't going to be motivated to vote for a pro-chocie, pro-gay President. So they won't vote. Giuliani is in trouble even with their votes, so they might not impact the Presidential election. But what they could really hurt is Republicans in the Senate.

I think this is right. The cat's already out of the bag with respect to Giuliani/Dobson - there's no way he's going to generate a huge turnout among social conservatives now in the general. I think Rudy knows this and will do what he can to prevent mass defections while at the same time trying to continue to appeal based on being a social moderate.

I don't think Dobson's bluffing either. If he buys some half-assed 'conversion' from Giuliani, he'll be (correctly) perceived as a complete sell-out. In the long run, a president Hillary is better for Dobson than a president Giuliani that he helped to elect.

Posted by BFR | October 9, 2007 11:34 PM

Rihilism, how the court views the wisdom of antitrust law has exactly nothing to do with the court's legitimate role, which is to apply the law in a good faith pursuit of intellectual honesty. Do you really want 9 autocrats with lifetime appointments pursuing their own moral agenda? That is likely how one could end up with a court saying, for instance, that Congress has the legitimate power to ban certain abortion procedures, despite the fact that the Constitution enumerates no such power.

Why not be satisfied with the knowledge that almost any conceivable enterprise with monopolistic designs will be engaging in interstate commerce, and thus can be legitimately regulated by Congress? Is it really necessary to have the court adopt a patina of moralism, all the better to be ever-vigiliant in opposing "greed"? Do you want a court, or a priest?

Posted by Will Allen | October 10, 2007 1:01 AM

I think you're right that the situation is that Giuliani doesn't like kowtowing. Look at Hannity's arguments to Dobson. Read the comments on these threads at hotair.com or other movement conservative blogs. The 9/11 wing of the Republican coalition doesn't think it has to bow to anyone. 9/11 and anti-Hillary-ism trumps every other issue, and if the evangelical wing isn't willing to come along then they're traitors just like the left.

Similarly, Dobson's first concern is not judges it's his movement and influence. Has any evangelical leader ever expressed any regret for staying home in 1992 and letting the first Clinton get elected? And regardless of whether some unholy deal can be forged in the general election if Giuliani is nominated, the only hope Dobson et al have to prevent that nomination is to at least pretend that there is absolutely zero chance that they will support Giuliani because otherwise their threat won't be taken seriously enough. And once the rhetoric in the primary heats up enough, are they really going to be able to take it all back?

This is a game of chicken between people who have viewed the last 6 years as evidence that they need to be even more uncompromising and absolutist, not less. I'm betting on a crash.

Posted by Will | October 10, 2007 6:29 AM

"Because, unlike with his 2nd amendment flip-flop, I don't think he credibly can use the "9-11 changed everything" excuse for switching his famously long held views on abortion and gay rights."

Frankly, speaking as a life member of the NRA, his flip flop on the 2nd amendment isn't particularly credible, either. Guliani is in trouble with the gun owner vote, and even if the NRA leadership decides for strategic reasons to pretend he's believable, they're going to have a tough time convincing the membership.

"Where's the organization that will get this candidate on the ballot in all fifty states?"

The Libertarian party frequently accomplishes this, but I can't see Dobson urging anybody to vote Libertarian. If he were going to do that, he'd just back Paul.

Who's getting my vote, by the way.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | October 10, 2007 6:48 AM

"Do you really want 9 autocrats with lifetime appointments pursuing their own moral agenda? That is likely how one could end up with a court saying, for instance, that Congress has the legitimate power to ban certain abortion procedures, despite the fact that the Constitution enumerates no such power."

Well, abortion rights were not "enumerated" in the Constitution either (which the 9th Amendment makes clear is not any reason to deny such rights).

There seems to be this strange idea going around (self-serving logic courtesy Scalia, Thomas, et. al.) that supreme court justices are automatons void of any emotional, political, life experience or "moral" judgment and that it's possible to "apply the law in a good faith pursuit" without having to utilize any interpretive skills or "judgment". When has that ever been true?

"Is it really necessary to have the court adopt a patina of moralism, all the better to be ever-vigiliant in opposing "greed"? Do you want a court, or a priest?"

Not so much a patina of moralism as a judgment of what's "intended" by the legislation and the Constitution. Unless we plan on codifying every aspect of every law (Congress always gets it right the first time) and list every "right" in the Constitution (and then amend the Constitution to state that that that's it folks, no more) then we are stuck with the justice-priests.

Posted by Rihilism | October 10, 2007 7:19 AM

Well, rights don't have to be enumerated, as the Ninth Amendment clearly states. In contrast, given that there is no amendment which states that Congress retains powers that have not been enumerated, it's pretty clear that Congress can only lawfully engage in actions which utilize enumerated powers. I'd prefer justices who simply adhered to the text, to the best of their abilities applied in good faith, something Thomas is better at than Scalia, and spared me their views of morality.

Posted by Will Allen | October 10, 2007 2:03 PM

So why doesn't Rudy do it? My guess is he's ornery and doesn't like the idea of kowtowing.

Actually, it's got nothing to do with being ornery. Giuliani can see that it's impossible for him to suddenly become anti-gay and pro-life. He'd seem like an opportunist blatently pandering for votes. That's the choice Mitt Romney took, which is why nobody can believe anything he says.

Giuliani can say, yes I have gay friends, but I'll appoint "strict constructionists" who will protect traditional values. These aren't contradictory statements (Giuliani isn't a gay rights advocate after all). It puts him in the same camp with Dick Cheney.

Romney on the other hand can say he's 100% pro-life today. But his transformation was so abrupt and so self-serving that nobody can trust he won't be 100% pro-choice tomorrow.

Posted by Jinchi | October 10, 2007 4:47 PM

A power broker needs to be seen to have power

Let's remember how the religious right proved they had power in 2000. Despite being their dream-candidate, George Bush wasn't given carte blanche. The first thing they did (before he was even sworn in) was warn him against nominating Colin Powell for Attorney General. There was nothing subtle in their threats either. John Ashcroft was picked specifically to appease their will.

Dobson won't simply give his endorsement to Giuliani. He'll demand a seat at the table. That's what a lot of this posturing is about.

Posted by Jinchi | October 10, 2007 4:56 PM

Damn that Congress and their specious anti-trust laws! It all started with that socialist Teddy Roosevelt.

President Benjamin Harrison signed the Sherman act into law in 1890. Roosevelt didn't take office until 1901.

Posted by Adult | October 10, 2007 4:59 PM