To my immediate displeasure, I note that Rudy Giuliani dropped an important code word while being interviewed by Sean Hannity on Faux News: He said he would appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the Federal courts. Further, he seems to be softening his strong pro-choice stand in a few other ways, as the New York Times notes, with respect to parental notification laws.
Now, a very careful reading of what Giuliani is saying now compared to things he said in the past reveals no actual inconsistencies. Today, he is saying that the Constitution permits parental notification laws if there are judicial bypasses — that is, if the minor seeking an abortion can get judicial permission instead of parental permission prior to undergoing the procedure. This is a correct statement of Constitutional law. It is also not inconsistent with a statement Giuliani made in 1997 that if he were in Congress or a state legislature, he would have voted against enacting exactly such a law. It is one thing to say that a law is Constitutional, it is another to say that it is a good idea.
Nevertheless, this is bothersome to me. It bothers me in the same way that Jack Kemp’s reversal of position on affirmative action bothered me when he was Robert Dole’s running mate in 1996. Kemp had been in favor of some forms of affirmative action, but reversed himself to be more ideologically congruent with the Presidential candidate and the party’s platform which provided for a near-blanket opposition to all forms of affirmative action. I’m not a fan of affirmative action myself, and I was actually more pleased with Kemp’s ultimate position. But it sickened me to see Kemp sell out (especially when the Dole ticket was so obviously going to lose). Kemp got his credibility and appeal as a politician from being able to say that he had stood up for his principles for his entire political career. That doesn’t mean he didn’t compromise and take half a loaf sometimes out of political necessity, or that he was a rigid ideologue; it means he was always working towards the same ultimate goal. Suddenly reversing course on that issue took a lot of the moral authority out of his arguments on that issue — and by extension, a lot of the moral force out of his arguments on other issues, too. It made him look craven and politically pliable.
I’d always respected Kemp for his convictions in favor of affirmative action even while I disagreed with them; I realized it was probably uncomfortable for him to maintain a position opposed to the majority of the party’s but he did so anyway. I also liked Kemp quite a bit for his strong, principled positions on other issues where he and I did agree. Loyal Readers may recall that “flip-flopping” was a centerpiece attack of the President’s campaign on John Kerry in 2004. And, come to think of it, against Al Gore in 2000. There is zero reason to believe that Democratic political operatives will not absolutely hammer Giuliani on a flip-flop on abortion, the Democrats’ most prized, centerpiece issue, should such a flip-flop occur.
Look, Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice. There’s no getting around that. The majority (but not all) of the GOP’s base of activists and early-round voters are pro-life, and very passionately so. I understand reaching out to them and trying to appeal to them for support. But I fear that if Giuliani pushes much further in this direction, he will suffer the same loss of principled moral authority that Jack Kemp suffered in 1996. That would significantly detract from his appeal in other dimensions of his candidacy — it’s important to stand up for what you believe in, and be seen as having the courage of your convictions. That may mean alienating some primary voters and making the primary process more difficult than it would otherwise have been. But the prize for doing so is taking a huge weapon out of the hands of Democrats in the general election, and thereby gaining an advantage in a cycle where Republicans are going to need all the advantages they can get.
The pro-life contingent needs to be thrown a bone, I agree. They’ll dislike being thrown a bone after they’ve been so affectionately courted by politicians in the past, it’s true. But throwing them a bone is not the same thing as giving in to them, which carries a cost too steep to pay. A Republican primary voter motivated passionately by a strong pro-life position is never going to vote for you in the primaries anyway; such a voter will never really trust you no matter what you say. All you can realistically do is convince such a voter that he or she will be better off with you in the White House than a Democrat, and for that, a nod like this is all you need to accomplish that objective.
So don’t sell out, Rudy! This far, and no farther.
Update 2/12/2007: For more on Rudy shifting rightward, read this week’s article on that subject in Time magazine.
