When Rudy Giuliani took the stage last Friday at the annual
Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., he
did so to an overflowing crowd of mainly young, socially
conservative activists. But, while his nearly hour-long speech
touched on a host of conservative themes — including welfare,
taxes and, of course, the war on terror — one set of issues was
conspicuously absent: social issues, most notably abortion.
The CPAC omission highlights a strategy for addressing the
concerns of social conservatives that has emerged in the opening
stages of Giuliani’s campaign: He’s keeping his attention, and
theirs, focused squarely on the war on terror.
It’s a strategy based on the belief that if Giuliani can portray
the war against Islamic terror as the central crisis of our time,
and if he can argue that a President Giuliani would be most
effective at conducting that war, he can keep the focus off what
separates him from many conservatives (the culture war) and on what
unites them (the war on terror).
During initial visits to early primary states, Giuliani has made
frequent invocation of 9-11 his calling card, while steering clear
of social issues like abortion. Speaking recently at state
Republican conventions in New Hampshire and California, he did not
discuss his positions on social issues and didn’t take questions
from the audience, thus providing no opportunity for them to ask
him about his views on abortion. At a recent “town hall” meeting in
South Carolina, Giuliani devoted most of his speech to the heroism
of police officers and firefighters on September 11th and the
threat of terrorism. Similar meetings have taken place in Iowa and
New York.
Of course, in order to attract wary pro-lifers, Giuliani —
whose unequivocal support for abortion earned him the endorsement
of abortion-rights organizations in past elections — must convince
them that the abortion issue pales in comparison to America’s
existential fight against Islamic extremism.
This is no small undertaking given that most pro-lifers consider
abortion tantamount to murder, and many compare America’s abortion
regime to a national holocaust or genocide.
Despite this reality, the Giuliani campaign clearly believes
that the Republican Party’s basic political calculus has shifted in
a direction favorable to its candidate. Speaking with Time
magazine recently, a top Giuliani strategist put it simply: “This
is the first wide-open primary season since 9-11, and the war on
terror is such an important issue with conservative and moderate
voters alike, I’m not sure social issues are decisive now.”
So, will Giuliani’s “The-war-on-terror-trumps-all-else” message
resonate with pro-life conservatives?
No, and here’s why.
EVEN GRANTING THAT THE WAR on terror is paramount and that Rudy
Giuliani would be our most effective wartime leader (both dubious
assumptions), the theory assumes that if Giuliani does not receive
the GOP presidential nomination, whoever ends up winning it will be
significantly worse when it comes to protecting America from
terrorist attacks.
This assumption is incorrect, of course. If Giuliani does not
become the Republican Party’s nominee, the candidate Republicans do
choose will be at worst only marginally worse on the issue of
fighting terrorism. In other words, there are no candidates who
support terrorism, or even any serious candidates who do not take
terrorism very seriously. When it comes to protecting America from
terrorist attacks, then, if we do not get Rudy, we will get
somebody nearly as strong.
On abortion, however, the positions of the GOP presidential
candidates aren’t quite so monolithic. While some view abortion as
the intentional taking of an innocent human life — akin to murder
— Giuliani views it as a constitutional right that ought to be
allowed at almost any time during pregnancy, for any reason at all
— and often at taxpayers’ expense. This puts Giuliani at the
opposite end of the spectrum from other GOP presidential candidates
on the protection of innocent human life in the womb.
To put it another way, if, on a scale from one to ten, Giuliani
can be considered a “ten” on terrorism (with “ten” representing the
ideal hard-line stance against terror and “one” representing a
pro-terror position), it is also true that on the right to life
(with “ten” representing the most pro-life position and “one”
representing the most anti-life position), Giuliani receives, to be
charitable, a “two.” This gives him, on the issues of terror and
human life, a total score of “twelve,” which puts him well behind
any pro-life conservative candidate, who, while receiving a “nine”
or “ten” on the right to life, would also surely receive no less
than an “eight” or “nine” on terror.
So, what would a Giuliani presidency look like for pro-life
conservatives who believe America is threatened by the twin
scourges of abortion and Islamic terrorism? A Giuliani presidency
would perhaps protect America from the scourge of Islamic terror,
but it would also perpetuate and reaffirm a scourge that has
already taken the lives of over 50 million innocents. Social
conservatives can, and must, do better.
At CPAC, billed as the largest gathering of conservative
political activists in the country, Rudy’s silence on abortion and
other social issues didn’t stop conference-goers from giving him
several standing ovations. Giuliani endeared himself to his
audience by sticking to the safest possible conservative themes:
Ronald Reagan (“I am part of the Reagan Revolution”) and “Freedom”
(“We believe in giving freedom to people”). As a result, Giuliani
finished second in the CPAC Straw Poll of Republican Presidential
candidates.
Tellingly, however, Giuliani performed much worse (fifth place)
among the third of conference attendees for whom the sanctity of
human life and other social issues were paramount. Perhaps
Giuliani’s constant references to Ronald Reagan reminded these
conservatives that while it is imperative to protect America’s
freedom, as President Reagan famously declared, “there is no cause
more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the
transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without
which no other rights have any meaning.”
