Rudy: Just Put Him in, Coach

With the Iowa primary only a month away, many voters are concerned about a largely unimpressive Republican field. Much of this unease comes from the lack of what appears to be to be a truly electable social conservative—a well-founded concern for a party that relies heavily on its Christian constituency to win elections. The Republican frontrunner in the majority of opinion polls is former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, a candidate whose political record can be deemed moderate at best. As easy as it may be to discount Giuliani’s candidacy, however, conservative voters would be wise to take a second look at “America’s Mayor.” He may well be their best chance for victory next November.

Giuliani has fallen under heavy criticism from social conservatives who believe he does not represent the interests of their party. Disapproval has been especially strong from the religious right, who decry his pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-gun control stances, not to mention his messy family life (two divorces, charges of adultery, and reports that he has become estranged from his children). Some conservative leaders have gone so far as to say that they will support a third party candidate should Giuliani receive the Republican nomination.

Though well intentioned, I fear that many conservatives have lost a sense of priority. To encourage conservatives to vote for a third-party candidate is, essentially, to hand the election to the Democrats. While far from ideal, Giuliani has many redeeming qualities. Furthermore, he is in a unique position to secure the nation’s moderate vote—the most important step towards winning the presidency.

The demonizing of Giuliani demonstrates that many conservatives could use a crash course in American government. The president, despite popular belief, has little direct control over our government’s social policies. Lawmaking, after all, is left to our Congress, and though the president has substantial influence in the legislative process (including veto power), it is unlikely that Giuliani would alienate himself from his party by allowing liberal social reform on Capitol Hill. Furthermore, we mustn’t forget that the decline of America’s moral fiber has been far less affected by Congress than by the often overlooked power of activist judges who brazenly abuse their office in order to advance their own progressive social agendas. Abortion laws, we must remember, were not struck down by Congress; they were struck down by a court of liberal judges.

Our judiciary is not limited, however, to overruling state law. It is also capable of overturning bad decisions and upholding those protections laid out in our Constitution. To do so, however, it must be placed in the right hands. The next president will have the opportunity to replace at least one, and perhaps two or more, Supreme Court justices. Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both likely to step down within the next few years, reducing the court’s count of liberal judges to two. For social conservatives, winning the 2008 election and thus gaining the opportunity to appoint justices to the Supreme Court would be a major milestone in the fight against liberal activism.

The first step toward achieving this victory, however, is to win the presidency. If Rudy Giuliani proves the best bet for defeating a Democrat in 2008, then social conservatives might want to reconsider their stance on the controversial candidate. He has pledged on numerous occasions to appoint judges like Scalia and Alito—constructionists who, whenever possible, interpret the Constitution as our Founders intended. It is this type of judge that social conservatives want on their side.

For an increasing number of right-wingers, of course, social issues are not a top priority. Giuliani’s mayoralty of New York City has made the candidate a top choice for those concerned with national security and terrorism. Despite his objectionable methods (which included restrictions on gun ownership) Giuliani’s administration saw a severe drop in city crime rates. Furthermore, his response to 9/11 was praised by members of both political parties. For his leadership, Time magazine declared him 2001’s “Person of the Year.”

Fiscally, Giuliani has shown himself to be a formidable candidate. As mayor of New York, Giuliani cut taxes on numerous occasions, saving taxpayers $9 billion. His campaign has pledged entitlement reform, low taxes, a balanced budget, and an end to pork barrel spending.

Internal strife within the Democratic Party, a resilient economy, and an improving state of affairs in Iraq indicate that Republicans may have a better chance than previously thought of holding on to the White House. This has allowed candidates like Mike Huckabee, previously considered an underdog, to gain steam in several crucial primary states, indicating that the conservative cause is far from lost. Should this trend continue, more traditional candidates could rise as credible contenders for the November election. If Giuliani is to win the Republican nomination, however, conservatives must be prepared to support him.

As ill favored as his social positions may be, Giuliani’s election would be the lesser of two evils. Casting aside one’s moral and religious principles for the sake of compromise is never a popular suggestion. The alternative, however, is far worse. Should Clinton, Obama, or Edwards win the presidency, they will all but destroy the integrity of our judiciary. They will raise taxes, spend money, and further confiscate the rights of the individual. This is what’s at stake, and it should make your choice much clearer.