Six Leading News Stories For 2007 (December 18)

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way.

-- Charles Dickens

Six leading news stories point the way human events are moving.

1. Is the Religious Right Negotiating the Terms of Its Surrender? March 5 Yes, I know, it's only 600 and some days before the election, but the 2008 presidential contest is already interesting, and the results could have an enormous impact on America's future political direction. The big news of this week, for example, was Rudy Giuliani's friendly reception at the Conservative Political Action Conference, a gathering that represents the views of the hard-core religious right.

Giuliani was not the favorite candidate of those in attendance—he is, after all, an essentially secular candidate who has refused to change his views on "social issues" like abortion and "gay marriage"—but the news is that the religious right found him acceptable. As the New York Sun put it:

It's still very early in this race. But the idea that Mr. Giuliani is unacceptable to the Republican Party's conservative base died this weekend, and he can now gather speed with his formulation–articulated so well at the Hoover Institution last week–that the GOP is the party of tax cuts, parental choice in education, and a health care system rooted in free-market principles, or, as he put it, the "Party of Freedom."

The article below expands on this, arguing that the CPAC conference signaled the end of the religious right's agenda as a "litmus test" for Republican candidates—though it also intimates that Rudy has offered the religious right a deal in which he gains their support in exchange for a vague promise to appoint "conservative" judges.

The question is whether this is the religious right negotiating the terms of its surrender to Giuliani—or Giuliani negotiating an indirect surrender to the religious right. But the Giuliani candidacy has the potential to provide an excellent opportunity for Republicans to decide what they care about most: free markets and a strong national defense—or government support for their religious agenda.

"Let's Make a Deal," Noemie Emery, Weekly Standard, dated March 5 Next year may see the party of the Sunbelt and Reagan, based in the South and in Protestant churches, nominate its first presidential candidate who is Catholic, urban, and ethnic—and socially liberal on a cluster of issues that set him at odds with the party's base. As a result, it may also see the end of the social issues litmus test in the Republican party, done in not by the party's left wing, which is shrunken and powerless, but by a fairly large cadre of social conservatives convinced that, in a time of national peril, the test is a luxury they cannot afford…. [T]his time, a pro-life party, faced with a pro-choice candidate it finds compelling on other grounds…is not carping or caving or seeking a convert. Instead, it is making a deal….

Why has this happened now, after decades of litmus-test dictates?...

There is the war, which overwhelms everything as the major issue in the eyes of the base. No group in the country backs the war on terror as fervently as social conservatives, whose main criticism of the president's policy is that it has not been aggressive enough… They see [Giuliani] as a more ruthless version of George W. Bush, someone who would not have consented to less-than-aggressive rules of engagement; who would have taken Falluja the first time, and not have had to come back later; who would not have let Sadr escape when he had him; who would not have been fazed by whining over Abu Ghraib and Club Gitmo, and would have treated critics of the armed forces and of the mission with the same impatience he showed critics of the police in New York….

The deal in the works has been carefully crafted to make sure that no one loses too much. Conservatives would be getting a pro-choice nominee, but one who would not push a pro-choice agenda, and one who would give them (as far as presidents can be sure in these matters) the kind of judges they long for. Giuliani would not be required to renounce his beliefs, merely to appoint the right kind of judges and to remain more or less neutral in a policy area in which, to be honest, he has never shown that much interest.

2. The Abortion Litmus Test, May 15 For decades, the Republican Party has subjected its presidential candidates to an abortion "litmus test." Now one of its presidential candidates is about to subject the Republican Party to a new kind of abortion litmus test. The Party's reaction to Rudy Giuliani's candidacy is a test of its priorities. What do Republicans care about more: the War on Terrorism, or the agenda of the religious right?

So far, they seem to care more about the War on Terrorism. How do I know that? Well, because that's what they're saying in so many words, as in the article linked to below. This leads Dick Morris to speculate that new terrorist threats will boost Giuliani's candidacy, and that Rudy will win—if the war remains a top issue in the campaign.

"Why This Pro-Lifer Will Likely Be Voting for Rudy," Jack Kelly, Jewish World Review, May 15 I'm against abortion under most circumstances. So why does Rudy Giuliani's firm declaration of support for a procedure I abominate make me more likely to support him for the Republican nomination for president?

I'll be a single issue voter in 2008. If we don't win the war on terror, nothing else will matter very much.

All four of the Republicans who have a realistic chance of winning say the right things about the war on terror. So does George W. Bush. Mr. Bush is an honest, brave, compassionate man whose heart is in the right place. But his head's been somewhere else. The mistakes his administration have made have put our mission in Iraq in serious jeopardy.

After six years of the Bush administration, I yearn for competence in the White House. I want a president who will run the government, instead of being intimidated by his own bureaucracies…. I want a president who not only understands what's at stake in the war on terror, but who can communicate those stakes effectively to the American people.

Which is why I'm attracted to Rudy….

A Giuliani trait I like very much is his tendency to say what he thinks….

Only a president who tells us what we need to know as opposed to what we want to hear can lead us to victory in the war on terror. So though I don't like what Rudy has to say about abortion, I do like it that he's telling me clearly where he stands.

3. Only Rudy Can Overturn Roe? September 17 Why is Rudy Giuliani still the front-runner for the Republican nomination? (Fred Thompson's leap to second place in the polls seems to have come mainly at the expense of Mitt Romney and other, lesser candidates and not from taking away Giuliani's supporters.) I have argued that the main reason is that most Republicans regard the War on Terrorism as a more important issue than their religious agenda. But the article below (as well as a similar piece in the Chicago Sun-Times) offers a different line of reasoning.

In this view, Giuliani's pledge to appoint "strict constructionist" judges to the Supreme Court would be likely to lead to an eventual reversal of Roe v. Wade—which was, in fact, decided on the very insubstantial grounds of the vague penumbra of a right to privacy. And this author actually prefers that these judges be appointed by Giuliani, whose non-observant religious background would serve to defuse opposition.

Just as only Nixon could go to China, this argument goes, only Rudy can overturn Roe.
I think there's a bit of wishful thinking in this argument (including the presumption that conservatives could successfully ban abortion in most states if Roe were no longer an obstacle). But it's worth keeping in mind as the motive and not-so-secret hope of some of Giuliani's seemingly unlikely supporters on the religious right.

"Anti-Roe and Pro-Rudy," Eric Johnston, New York Times, September 14 To the disbelief of the political class, Rudy Giuliani still leads the polls in the race for the Republican nomination for president. Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson seem unable to compete with conservative affection for a thrice-married, twice-divorced, socially liberal New Yorker.

Perhaps I can help alleviate the pundits' bafflement. I am a fervent pro-lifer, and I like Rudy Giuliani. And it's not because, as some suggest, I think national security is more important than abortion. I think Mr. Giuliani will be the most effective advocate for the pro-life cause precisely because he is unreligious and a supporter of abortion rights….

Mr. Giuliani promises to nominate judges who are "strict constructionists." His campaign Web site explains: "It is the responsibility of the people and their representatives to make laws. It is the role of judges to apply those laws, not to amend our Constitution without the consent of the American people."

Roe v. Wade, with no textual warrant in the Constitution, struck down the states' democratically enacted restrictions on abortion. By fighting Roe, pro-lifers aim not to make abortion illegal by judicial fiat, but to return the decision about how to regulate abortion to the states, where we are confident we can win.…

Only a constitutionalist who supports abortion rights can create an anti-Roe majority by explaining that the end of Roe means letting the people decide, state by state, about abortion….

Mr. Giuliani makes the same arguments that we pro-lifers make. But he can be more persuasive because he will not be perceived as trying to advance his own religious preferences. By taking the side of pro-lifers for democratic, but not devout, motives, a President Giuliani could shake up the nearly 35-year-old debate over Roe v. Wade.

4. The Rebellion of the Religious Right, October 4 On Monday, I linked to a story about a threat by religious conservatives to back a third party candidate if the Republican Party nominates Rudy Giuliani.

One of the leaders of this revolt, James Dobson, has now published an oddly petulant op-ed in the New York Times threatening that, "If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life,"—i.e., promises to ban abortion—"we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate." It is an attempt to hold the Republican Party to what Dobson calls a "values test"—which is to say, a test of loyalty to the values of the religious right.

What is odd about Dobson's petulance is that he does not project the confidence of someone who is certain of the religious right's power and of its grip on the Republican Party. And in fact, Giuliani quickly brushed off Dobson's threat, while Fred Thompson responded to criticism from Dobson by declaring, "I'm not going to dance to anyone's tune." This leads Ryan Sager (who is biased toward something of a secular right outlook) to conclude and that the religious right is overplaying its hand.

Another observer comes to a similar conclusion, describing the threat against Giuliani as a desperate bluff by religious-right lobbyists who are afraid of losing their influence in the White House.

The article below describes Giuliani's strategy for breaking the stranglehold of the religious right on the Republican Party. He is attempting to bypass the self-declared leaders of the religious right and appeal directly to religious voters, most of whom are not as single-mindedly dedicated to banning abortion and gay marriage as they are to, say, fighting the war on terrorism.

This is Giuliani's attempt to lure the usual constituency of the religious right to support a secular-right candidacy.

"Rudy Does End Run around the Right's Leaders," Alexander Bolton, The Hill, October 3 Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the Republican frontrunner in national polls, has avoided meeting with the nation's most powerful socially conservative leaders, and instead is taking his appeal directly to conservative activists at the local level.

Giuliani has not met with the leaders who make up the Arlington Group, a coalition of influential conservatives who have met as a group with Giuliani's chief rivals, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Giuliani is also the only major Republican candidate who has not responded to an invitation to attend a briefing later this month sponsored by the Family Research Council, a prominent advocacy group representing evangelical Christians….

A Giuliani campaign official said that Giuliani does not need the support of the nation's leading social conservatives to mobilize conservative activists….

"Giuliani needs to make a direct appeal to voters of faith that he will appoint conservative judges and favor common sense restrictions on abortion at the federal level, and in the end that is probably more important than any good housekeeping seal of approval from a particular pro-family leader," said the strategist.

Giuliani's campaign did just that on Tuesday when it unveiled its "Justice Advisory Committee."
The committee, which includes conservative stalwarts such as Ted Olson, the former solicitor general of the United States, and Miguel Estrada, a former circuit court judicial appointee filibustered by Democrats, will advise Giuliani on legal and policy issues, including judicial appointments.

Giuliani's strategy has helped him maintain a high level of support among rank-and-file conservatives even while he snubs the nation's most powerful socially conservative leaders.

5. The Soul of the Party, October 10 A lot of attention is paid to the influence of the religious right or "social conservatives" on the Republican Party—and rightly so. Because religion provides the explicit moral underpinning for much of the right, the religious conservatives exert an influence out of proportion to their actual numbers.

But the article below is also correct to point out another, secular influence on the Republican Party that tends to go unnoticed precisely because it is more sweeping and uniform: the influence of the "economic far right," i.e., the pro-free-marketers.

The article below is written by a leftist who obsesses narrowly on the influence of one doctrine from one school of pro-free-market economics (the Laffer Curve promoted by the supply-siders). But he is correct in pointing to a revealing contrast: Republican presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani is able to agree to disagree with the conservative base on abortion—but he feels constrained to promote himself as a tax-cutting free-market reformer.

"Captives of the Supply Side," Jonathan Chait, New York Times, October 9 Remember the Republican presidential debate a few months ago, when three candidates raised their hands to indicate they didn't believe in evolution? Something just as laughable is likely to happen today, at the first Republican debate on the economy. Every candidate will probably embrace the myth that cutting taxes increases government revenues. At the very least, no one will denounce it as a falsehood.

It's been said for years that the Republican nominating process is controlled by social conservatives, and that any aspiring nominee must kowtow to their demands. But this year's Republican primary is making it increasingly clear that a different tiny minority—the economic far right—truly calls the shots….

Every major Republican contender—Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney—has said that the Bush tax cuts have caused government revenues to rise. No prominent Republican office-seeker dare challenge this dogma for fear of offending the economic far right….

No Republican candidate can risk committing heresy by acknowledging this bipartisan consensus among economists. On social issues, however, Republicans actually tolerate diversity of thought. For example, Mr. McCain, Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Thompson all oppose, on federalist grounds, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The Republican Party is organized around a strategy of building political capital on social issues while spending political capital on economic issues. Republicans will advance the social conservative agenda, but they will rarely risk their popularity to do so….

The party's economic priorities are reinforced at Grover Norquist's weekly "Wednesday Group" meetings, where conservative activists, politicians, business lobbyists and pundits meet to hash out a common agenda. Mr. Norquist is known to cut off any mention of issues like abortion or homosexuality with a curt "No sex talk, please."

A handful of fanatical ideologues, along with a somewhat larger number of money men who stand to gain a fortune from supply-side policies, relentlessly enforce the faith. They do so with far more success than the religious right, and they receive far less mockery for their efforts.

6. The Abortion Litmus Test, October 19 The big story of the 2008 Republican primary is the Giuliani candidacy's test of the power and priorities of the religious right. Do religious conservatives have a death grip on the Republican Party—or will the party make the war and free markets a higher priority than banning abortion?

The Washington Post reports that Evangelical Christians are still dissatisfied with the other three major Republican candidates—not just Giuliani, but also Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain, none whom has a strong and consistent record of backing a religious agenda.

Now all of the right's attention is focused on Giuliani's speech Saturday to a conference of religious-right "values voters." There, Giuliani will not renounce his support for the right to abortion, but will make the following appeal: "The idea is going to be that there's enough for us to agree about and enough that we're facing in terms of the outside world, meaning foreign threats and domestic problems in terms of spending."

Meanwhile, Dick Morris profiles the last hope of the religious right: obscure former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who in addition to being anti-abortion is also a pro-welfare-state "compassionate conservative" type. Huckabee is on the verge of becoming a major candidate simply because he has become the desperate choice of the religious wing of the Republican Party.

"Huckabee Is the Right Wing's Last Survivor," Dick Morris, RealClearPolitics, October 17 Peel them away and, underneath, you have Mike Huckabee, the last survivor in the elimination tournament of the Christian right. And they could do a whole lot worse!...

[P]lugging away in the shadows, with no money and no political backing, an articulate, principled, knowledgeable, conservative Christian, Mike Huckabee, has been plowing the fields in Iowa hoping to catch a break. He is witty, sincere, dedicated and courageous in his own way. With a minus share of the vote, he kept at it and refused to pander on the one hand or give up on the other.

I first met Mike when I became his consultant in his race for lieutenant governor of Arkansas. He was a refreshing change from my previous Arkansas client, but you probably know that story. I was impressed when I first asked Mike about his views on parole for violent felons. I anticipated a standard right-wing response. Instead, he said, "Oh, no, the Christian concept of forgiveness requires that we allow parole. We just have to use it wisely." I was amazed ... and sold.

What, I wondered, would a right-wing Christian activist do as governor of a state? He would sign off on the death penalty, veto abortion, oppose gay rights and insist on the Pledge of Allegiance, but then what would he do for the balance of his term in office? Mike Huckabee answered the question. He set up programs to fight childhood obesity, reformed prisons to emphasize reforming inmates, put values back in education and became a highly popular governor.

Now he churns his way to the forefront of the pack in the Republican primary. He's still broke, but still finished a strong second in the Ames, Iowa, straw poll with 18 percent of the vote.