Electability and the Pro-Life Vote

Matt writes:

It's interesting to see the non-Robertson (less crazy?) elements of the religious right trying to take [the "Rudy is more electable"] argument by the horns. Almost all the Democrats I know think these people are wrong and Giuliani would be the strongest GOP nominee. It still seems to me, though, that Giuliani is pretty likely to prompt a spoiler candidacy, especially if he somehow manages to win with the 30-35 percent he's currently pulling in the polls.

I'm often inclined to think that Giuliani would be the strongest GOP nominee - because he's a celebrity, a national hero, and a very capable politician. I'm skeptical that he'd be the strongest GOP nominee because he's pro-choice, which is something that his supporters often suggest, and that elite-level Democrats and Republicans alike seem to believe. Not just because of the possibility of a spoiler candidate (though that certainly factors in), but because there's at least as much reason to think that Giuliani's abortion views would hurt the GOP with socially-conservative, economically moderate voters (with the middle-class white Catholics, for instance, who broke for Bush heavily in '04) as there is reason to think that they would help the GOP with socially-liberal fiscal conservatives. And the election map is simply too complicated to say how these effects would balance out.

More generally, I'm on the record as thinking that Rudy's ability to reshape the map is overrated, and that if he is the strongest candidate, his strength will manifest itself in the existing swing states, not in New Jersey or New York or where-have-you.

Comments

Yeah, yeah, horserace, blah, blah, horserace, yeah, yeah...

Torture, Ross, torture. You write for political magazines that proudly endorse torture as official US policy. When are you going to get around to addressing this?

I doubt you'd agree to publish in venues that, say, deny the Holocaust or promote vicious racism. Why do you allow your work to appear in venues that praise torture?

Posted by Jim | November 9, 2007 12:55 PM

Forcing the Ds to spend money to win New York and Connecticut would, in a word, suck.

Likewise, should edwards be the nominee and suddenly the GOP has to spend money to win Oklahoma or North Carolina or Kentucky, things get very difficult.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | November 9, 2007 1:12 PM

The GOP shouldn't forget that Giuliani has quite a bit of baggage of which the public is largely unaware. He has so many sleazy figures associated with him (Alan Placa and Bernie Kerik, for starters) and his abysmal personal life would make easy fodder for Democrats in 2008. It doesn't seem like any of his fellow Republicans are going to attack him for it, which means that it's going to hurt more when he's the nominee if Republicans don't even know about them and he doesn't have to come up with a defense. The media is staying mum. And there is, of course, the little matter of his social liberalism, which might not be as big a factor in this election, but who knows?

Were I a conservative conspiracy theorist (and I am none of the three), I would speculate that the liberal media is keeping quiet about the Giuliani scandals we know about (and some we don't) so that they'll be able to release him after he gets the nomination, when they'll do far more damage. None of the Republicans (aside from Romney) has the resources to go after Rudy, and I doubt he will, as he thinks that winning in Iowa and New Hampshire will slingshot him to the nomination. Of course, Robertson endorsing Giuliani might change that calculus.

Posted by Lev | November 9, 2007 1:34 PM

Ross is dead wrong here. Pro-lifers who actually vote on the issue are a pretty small minority. Meanwhile, the Republicans' pro-life position costs them the votes of a lot of suburban women who might sympathize with their positions on economics, taxes, national security, and family values.

The third party candidacy is a danger, but the fact is, eventually, either in this election or a future one, the Republicans are going to be forced to recognize the reality that America is at least moderately pro-choice and pro-embryonic stem cell research and emergency contraception. That doesn't mean they might not advocate more restrictions on abortion than the Democrats-- things like partial birth and parental consent poll well-- but life begins at conception is going to go to the political dustbin.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 9, 2007 3:02 PM

Despite his obvious strengths, Rudy had a lot of things going against him, not just abortion. There's his over the top belligerance on the now unpopular war and the trail of corruption leaking out from his days as mayor. If the GOP nominates him, it can rightly expect to receive a serious asskicking.

With Hilary as the opposing nominee and everything else going their way, I could see several of the other GOP candidates eking out a very small victory. But I don't see any way for Giuliani to win.

Posted by Thursday | November 9, 2007 3:06 PM

...but because there's at least as much reason to think that Giuliani's abortion views would hurt the GOP with socially-conservative, economically moderate voters (with the middle-class white Catholics, for instance, who broke for Bush heavily in '04) as there is reason to think that they would help the GOP with socially-liberal fiscal conservatives.

Right. Why bother to pull the lever for Rudy when he's no better than Hillary on abortion, and when at least the latter might help you with your health insurance?

That said, I suspect Rudy's likely to be one of the two strongest candidate the GOP can put up. He'd surely be more competitive in places like New Jersey, New York and California than, say, Mitt Romney (at least I think he would). But who knows? A Rudy nomination -- even if it doesn't prompt a right wing third party/independent candidate to run -- probably would risk some luke-warmism amongst the GOP faithful in the bible belt. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few white Protestant southernern Republicans vote for Hillary (to say nothing of Edwards, were he to get the nod) over the multiply-divorced, Italian-American, lapsed Catholic, pro-abortion rights, formerly nice to gays and immigrants cross-dresser with the New York accent.

I guess I could see it breaking either way, but I still think the GOP's most electable candidate is John McCain.

Posted by Jasper | November 9, 2007 3:34 PM

Dilan,

there are certainly some of those suburban women (and men, I should add) who vote for the Democrats based primarily on their pro-choice platform. I don't think much of that way of thinking, of course. there are also a LOT of men and women who agree with the Democrats on virtually every other issue- the environment, foreign policy, torture, taxes, social welfare, education and health, economic policy, etc. but wind up voting Republican based solely on the abortion issue. The abortion issue is a deal breaker for many, many people. My sense is that most swing voters who tend to vote Republican do so based on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Statistics show that pro-life voters are more likely to be influenced by that issue when considering who to vote for than pro-choice voters. This has exceptions (me, for example) but the Democrats would assuredly pick up more votes by jettisoning their regrettable support of abortion than they would lose. I mean, really, where are the NARAL, Planned Parenthood crowd going to go when the Democratic party tells them to take a hike, and that they aren't supporting abortion anymore? To the Republicans? I don't think so.

By the way, you still haven't dealt with the point brought up in the other thread, which is that the pro-life position is actually slightly more popular among women among men (oh, aside from the ones in the boardrooms, thanks for pointing it out, I don't particularly care about them).

Posted by Hector | November 9, 2007 3:41 PM

Social conservatives are hardly thrilled with Rudy’s marriage life or position on abortion. Most, however, understand that the only effective control a president has over the abortion issue has to do with appointments to the Supreme Court. Giuliani has pledged to appoint Supreme Court nominees in the tradition of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito; whether he can be trusted on this is a question.

Personally, I favor Romney, though I would gladly settle for Giuliani, as my gut feeling is that his strong stance on security and economic issues will defeat Hillary Clinton’s vacillating stance on these issues.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | November 9, 2007 3:53 PM

I don't recall Giuliani saying he'd appoint justices like the Four Horsemen, but he does say he'll appoint strict constructionists when speaking in front of conservative crowds. When speaking elsewhere, he admits that strict constructionist might very well mean pro-Roe.

Giuliani's stance on abortion is, as Ted Kennedy said of Mitt Romney's position, multiple choice. He's trying to be on both sides of the issue. Republicans don't seem too interested in that particular concern right now, but I doubt he's going to get away with it come General Election time.

Posted by Lev | November 9, 2007 5:51 PM

Giuliani has pledged to appoint Supreme Court nominees in the tradition of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito; whether he can be trusted on this is a question.

I think it's a big question. As far as I know Rudy's never explicitly come out and said he believes it would be desirable for abortion policy to be returned to the states. Heck, I don't even think he's done a real wink/nod on Roe. He has expressed admiration for a few conservative justices, but you have to wonder why he can't go just a little bit further in his rhetoric. Maybe it's because he wants to be as competitive as possible in a general election (kind of a corollary to Hillary Clinton's hawkishness). But just maybe -- and this is something I never hear even considered -- Rudy Giuliani honestly thinks, as a matter of public policy -- that it is right for abortion to remain widely available and it is proper and desirable that this right be protected at the federal level. In other words, maybe he agrees with Roe, and would just as soon any potential "originalist" judge he might appoint embrace stare decisis when it comes to abortion.

Posted by Jasper | November 9, 2007 5:57 PM

When speaking elsewhere, he admits that strict constructionist might very well mean pro-Roe.

Exactly my point (and stated more succinctly than I managed to, I might add).

Posted by Jasper | November 9, 2007 6:00 PM

I suspect that when people think being pro-choice would help Rudy in the national election, they're thinking that's so because he could cut into the usual advantage Democrats enjoy among women, while not sacrificing with men (since men, except for younger men, generally have much less strong feelings regarding the issue and certainly if Hillary is the Dem nominee). I'm don't agree with this theory for two reasons: One, as Hector has been so kind as to point out before, women might be more strongly pro-choice, but they're also more strongly pro-life. I suppose there is an argument that in a general election Rudy could win some of the pro-choice women who are conservative on most other issues without risking any pro-life folks to, say, Hillary, but (in my view) that is incorrect because (reason two) it ignores the negative impact having no pro-life candidate would have on voter turnout (at least, with respect to the two major parties). I expect that in a case in which both Democrat and Republican were clearly pro-choice, the number of people who would be completely disillusioned and just stay home or vote 3rd party would vastly outnumber the number of any pro-choice women who might migrate to Rudy but not to, say, McCain. Of course, Rudy is muddying the waters by his talk of strict constructionists which further complicates the issue. I could be wrong too, but I don't think being pro-choice will help Rudy in the general election at all.

I should probably disclose that I am a born and bred Brooklynite who used to be a huge fan of Giuliani's despite his pro-choice views. There was a time where I would've quit my job to work on his campaign or taken a huge pay cut (in an alternate world where I wasn't already on government attorney salary) to serve in his justice department. That's no longer the case.

Posted by hugo | November 9, 2007 7:05 PM

My remark on Giuliani's position on the abortion issue was based on his following statement after the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling on the partial- birth abortion case as reported by MSNBC:

Giuliani favors abortion rights and has drawn criticism for supporting public funding of some abortions. But he says he would appoint justices very similar to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, President Bush’s appointees. Both were part of the majority in Wednesday’s ruling.
Giuliani said in a statement that he approves of the high court’s action.
“The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it,” he said.

Giuliani having been a New York politician, and Romney, having been caught in the toils of Massachusetts politics, have both of necessity had to trim their politics on this issue. Frankly, Giuliani strikes me as a rather confused Catholic on the whole issue.

Giuliani's strength lies in being a genuine economic conservative and his understanding from hard experience that we need to fight the Islamic jihadists. Compared to Pelosi, Reid, and Hillary, he has the requisite cojones to secure vital American interests.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | November 9, 2007 8:21 PM

Agreed that people who vote based on abortion issues are more likely to be Pro-Life. More importantly though the majority of "social conservative" Republicans are women. Most studies have indicated that what seems to be turning off some women about the GOP is issues related to the "safety net", guns, and war. There have been Pro-Life Republicans that do well with women voters. A Pro-Choice Republican who emphasized privatizing social security, gun-rights, and an aggressive foreign policy would presumably do poorly with women.

Specifically Giuliani is not appealing to women. I think even when he's placed up against Obama or Edwards women prefer the Democrat. Women voter demographics make it logical they'd be unenthused by a man who's noted mostly for national security, toughness, and three marriages.

Posted by Thomas R | November 9, 2007 8:29 PM

I don't know, I'm pro-choice, and it has never occurred to me as being remotely plausible that Giuliani's pro-choice stand would attract votes away from a Democrat. If he was a civil libertarian across the board, maybe. If he had pro-family economic policies, maybe. But I just can't see where these socially liberal, security authoritarian, big business voters are supposed to come from.

That's not to say I don't think Rudy would do well in the general election--but his social liberalism is clearly a liability, and I say that even though that's the only part of Giuliani I'm remotely sympathetic to. His strength is that he's crazy on foreign policy and he's really good at posturing in a way that shuts down the public's reason. (9/11!)

Still, if you put a pro-choice executive power fetishist warmonger social darwinist at the top of your ticket, y'all might as well give up on that "Culture of Life" thing. I have more respect for you when you're wrong then when you turn into soulless monsters, and that's the road Giuliani will put you on.

Posted by Consumatopia | November 9, 2007 8:31 PM

By the way, you still haven't dealt with the point brought up in the other thread, which is that the pro-life position is actually slightly more popular among women among men (oh, aside from the ones in the boardrooms, thanks for pointing it out, I don't particularly care about them).

Hector, has it occurred to you that there might be a correlation between maintaining control of the incidence and timing of childbirth-- even it it means terminating a pregnancy-- and success for a woman in the workforce or public life?

Thus, it isn't simply that affluent women are more likely to be pro-choice, but that pro-choice women, and specifically women who are willing to avail themselves of the abortion option, are more likely to succeed. Which is yet another reason that abortion is indispensible for gender equality.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 9, 2007 8:58 PM

"Which is yet another reason that abortion is indispensible for gender equality."

And yet Ireland (abortion mostly illegal except for health reasons), Germany (strong restrictions after the 14th week), and the Philippines(similar to Ireland) are in the top 10 for gender equality while we're not.

http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Gender%20Gap/index.htm

Even going by the UN there are nations that restrict abortion more than us, like Germany and Belgium, that are more "gender empowered."

http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/229.html

Posted by Thomas R | November 10, 2007 12:53 AM

Re: Pro-lifers who actually vote on the issue are a pretty small minority. Meanwhile, the Republicans' pro-life position costs them the votes of a lot of suburban women who might sympathize with their positions on economics, taxes, national security, and family values.

???
What are "family values" apart from pro-Life issues? That phrase has been a code-word for anti-abortion and anti-gay politics for a generation. And the number of people who are pro-Choice but anti-gay is probably quite tiny, smaller than the number who the opposite.

Posted by JonF | November 10, 2007 1:41 AM

Thomas R,

Thanks for bringing up Iralend. Ireland has a very strongly pro-life legal regime, as far as I know it's illegal even for pregnant Irish women to seek abortion abroad. That hasn't stopped Ireland from having two female Presidents, among their other achievements in the field of gender equality.

Is the status of women higher in India, which has legal abortion, than in Brazil which does not? Is it higher in Japan than in Ireland? Is it higher in China than in Chile? Something tells me that 'women's rights' has very little to do with abortion legality.

Of course this is to some degree beyond the point. As much as you might like 'gender equality', can you possibly justify buying it at the cost of the blood of innocent children? It's one thing to argue that the unborn child is not really a position, which is a defensible position, even though I think it's wrong. But if the unborn child is accepted as a full human being, then 'gender equality' cannot possibly justify abortion.

Posted by Hector | November 10, 2007 1:57 AM

Hugo,

I agree with your point in general, but one quibble. You mention that young men might have stronger feelings about abortion than older men, but don't specify which side, so I'm not sure what you meant to imply. In fact, young men aged 18-25 are the most strongly pro-life demographic of all. About 50% of young men aged 18-25 support restricting abortion rights, more than in any other group.

This makes perfect sense to me, actually. Young men are traditionally a demographic given to the embrace of idealistic causes- and in America today there are few mainstream causes that are more intuitively appealing, idealistic and romantic than the protection of those who will soon become helpless newborn babies, smiling and squirming, suckling at their mother's breast, grasping their little hands around every thing that they touch.

Posted by Hector | November 10, 2007 2:02 AM

One difficulty I might have in discussing this is that Dilan's position is not one I hear much from Pro-Choice people. I'm not sure I've ever heard it from a Pro-Choice woman, not even the one who worked at an abortion clinic.

Usually the emphasis is that women have an absolute autonomy on their body and some women are not ready to be mothers when they get pregnant. To an extent when pressed they'll say that it is indeed better to never exist then to be unwanted by your mother. Or they'll bring up women who are insane or addicted to drugs or cases when the fetus has anencephaly.

The "career" position seems close to saying "reality has a clear gender-bias we must eliminate." Which I don't really buy. In our age men can have their careers or status effected by fathering a child. Likewise women with children can make lots of money. Doris Fisher has three sons and is one of the most powerful self-made women in America. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/11/S8TL.html http://www.forbes.com/2002/02/27/2002women.html

Posted by Thomas R | November 10, 2007 2:20 AM

Sorry, Hector, I wasn't trying to imply anything, I just wasn't clear. Men generally don't have feelings as strong as women on abortion, except for young men who are more likely to be pro-life than other age groups and also have stronger pro-life sentiments.

I'm highly skeptical of the argument that abortion rights are essential to eliminating the gender gap or to women enjoying better career opportunities. I don't think we've seen that in this country, where the women most likely to get an abortion generally have very low incomes. And you all have pointed out some contrary examples among other countries.

I do think the abortion regime has contributed to illegitamacy. Under the regime, since unborn children are treated as disposable, there's no incentive for the would-be father to stick around. He can take off with a clear conscience, since if the woman doesn't want to bear the child alone she can always terminate the preganancy. Essentially, the woman's "choice" empowers men as much or more than women - men feel free to take off, and women are stuck with the "choice" of terminating the pregnancy or raising a child alone.

I don't mean to simplify the issue, I really don't, and I don't deny that Dilan's point is partially correct, especially for some upwardly mobile women. I just think that 1) on balance, the life of the child outweighs those considerations, and 2) regardless, the regime we have now is not working. It might be working for some, but it's not working for most. My opinion on this is based on my observation as well as statistics: I live in an inner-city neighborhood with an unbelievably high illegitimacy rate, a high abortion rate, and lots of juvenile crime. I see on a daily basis what the culture of illegitimacy has wrought, and it's not pretty. I wouldn't live here if I didn't care, and I wouldn't have this opinion if I didn't care.

Posted by hugo | November 10, 2007 9:30 AM

Hugo,

sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you were insinuating anything, I just wasn't sure what you were trying to say. people sometimes assume that young men tend to be pro-choice so that they can more easily sleep with women....that insinuation annoys me, particularly because it isn't true. but it sounds like you were in fact suggesting the opposite...young men tend to be pro-life.

there are certainly a lot of fatherless children around, and it's certainly a big problem. i don't know that the problem is necessarily the lack of formal marriages though....more that fathers are not having commitment to their children and children's mothers. there are countries in Europe and Latin America which have more of a tradition of common law marriages, long term cohabitation, etc. which seem to serve them a lot better. certainly better that the current system of totally absent fathers serves America.

Posted by Hector | November 10, 2007 11:24 AM

true, my post was poorly worded. legitimacy isn't really the issue. the issue is a large part of the culture that involves little or no stigma to impregnating women and then not participating in the raising of the children. I'm of the opinion that abortion on demand contributes in a significant way to this attitude, for the reasons I described earlier.

Posted by hugo | November 10, 2007 4:47 PM

Very superior site. Good job. thnx.

Posted by Nathan David | November 10, 2007 8:45 PM

Let's remember that Giuliani is also pro-gun control, has marched in gay pride parades to show his support, and has a rather sordid personal life that he doesn't even pretend to be contrite about. Bill Clinton at least had the decency to be ashamed of the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Posted by Glaivester | November 10, 2007 9:12 PM

Hugo,

Certainly the fact that so many children are fatherless is a big problem. There is some evidence that it may be bad for children physically as well as emotionally and psychologically; specifically, I was reading a paper the other day which suggests that an unstable and particularly, fatherless, family situation can promote earlier onset of female puberty, with all the concomitant problems and risks. The dropping age of menarche in the US has usually been linked to our overly rich diet but apparently the lack of family stability could play a part as well. the reference is somewhere towards the bottom in this paper...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/wbbkmkba8kfdvmr6/

Posted by Hector | November 11, 2007 12:46 AM

Peter Leavitt:

Giuliani's strength lies in being a genuine economic conservative and his understanding from hard experience that we need to fight the Islamic jihadists. Compared to Pelosi, Reid, and Hillary, he has the requisite cojones to secure vital American interests.

Thanks, Peter. I needed something to jerk off to this Sunday morning. Nothing gets me hot like "vital American interests." After all, invading Iraq was totally vital to our "interests," as history has borne out unequivocally.

Posted by Bill | November 11, 2007 8:04 AM

"I'm often inclined to think that Giuliani would be the strongest GOP nominee - because he's a celebrity, a national hero, and a very capable politician"

My God!! Guiliani is not a national hero!!! You are not a hero by virtue of just being there on 9-11. By the time Guiliani emerged, FDNY hat firmly on his head, walking around the city because he had no command center, the federal government was already in charge. Rudy did nothing but make press conferences. Press conferences in which you repeat information from the federal government does not a hero make! Also Rudy pre 9-11 track record with issues of security is hardly exemplary. But why tell delve into all that? We have pictures of Rudy looking concerned with a FDNY hat on, that must mean he is a hero.

I wonder if heroes make money off tragedies with speaking fees?

Its real tragedy in modern politics to know that 3,000+ people died on 9/11 and Rudy uses it as campaign platform, and a way to duck questions about his own lack of foreign policy knowledge and experience.

The victims of 9/11 deserve better

Posted by MBP | November 11, 2007 12:55 PM

Stephen Malanga in a long City Journal summed Giuliani up as follows:

The national, and even world, press marveled at the spectacular success of Giuliani’s policies. The combination of a safer city and a better budget environment ignited an economic boom unlike any other on record. Construction permits increased by more than 50 percent, to 70,000 a year under Giuliani, compared with just 46,000 in Dinkins’s last year. Meanwhile, as crime plunged, New Yorkers took to the newly safe streets to go out at night to shows and restaurants, and the number of tourists soared from 24 million in the early 1990s to 38 million in 2000, the year before the 9/11 attacks. Under Giuliani, the city gained some 430,000 new jobs to reach its all-time employment peak of 3.72 million jobs in 2000, while the unemployment rate plummeted from 10.3 to 5.1 percent. Personal income earned by New Yorkers, meanwhile, soared by $100 million, or 50 percent, while the percentage of their income that they paid in taxes declined from 8.8 to 7.3 percent. During Giuliani’s second term, for virtually the only time since World War II, the city’s economy consistently grew faster than the nation’s.

Today, Americans see Giuliani as presidential material because of his leadership in the wake of the terrorist attacks, but to those of us who watched him first manage America’s biggest city when it was crime-ridden, financially shaky, and plagued by doubts about its future as employers and educated and prosperous residents fled in droves, Giuliani’s leadership on 9/11 came as no surprise. What Americans saw after the attacks is a combination of attributes that Giuliani governed with all along: the tough-mindedness that had gotten him through earlier civic crises, a no-nonsense and efficient management style, and a clarity and directness of speech that made plain what he thought needed to be done and how he would do it.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | November 11, 2007 3:55 PM

"he's a celebrity, a national hero, and a very capable politician"

The same could be said of John McCain, also Duncan Hunter won a Bronze Star for heroism. In previous elections "hero, celebrity, politician" could also have been said of John Kerry and Bob Dole. In addition both Charlie Rangel and John Murtha won the Purple Heart.

Brian Lamb helped to found C-SPAN, won a Presidential Medal of Freedom, and was Press Secretary to some politician. If only he was a politician Steve Buscemi could also fit. He is a celebrity and he did volunteer work as a firefighter on 9-11. (He had experience as a former firefighter)

Posted by Thomas R | November 11, 2007 6:43 PM

Thomas R writes: "And yet Ireland (abortion mostly illegal except for health reasons), Germany (strong restrictions after the 14th week), and the Philippines(similar to Ireland) are in the top 10 for gender equality while we're not.

http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Gender%20Gap/index.htm

Even going by the UN there are nations that restrict abortion more than us, like Germany and Belgium, that are more "gender empowered.""

Germany, Belgium, and Ireland also have universal health care - a factor to consider when conservatives want to demand that poor and young women push out each and every rugrat. But of course most conservatives are only pro-life when it's "pre-born."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | November 14, 2007 8:44 PM