Why it’s okay for gun owners to vote for Rudy
In a comment to this post, a reader writes:
Giuliani? Are you kidding? You’d vote for that gun-grabber?
Indeed I would. Let me explain.
I proceed from the assumption that context matters. In 2004, I — and 1.1 million other gays and lesbians — voted to re-elect George W. Bush even though Mr. Bush had announced his putative support for a Federal Marriage Amendment. How could I — how could we — do that? For starters, the FMA was hardly the most pressing issue facing the American electorate. If you believe, as I do, that as citizens we have some obligation to consider things beyond our own self-interests, then you’ll look at the big picture when deciding for whom to vote. In 2004, the war on terror was the big picture; and there was no serious case to be made for John Kerry as the prosecutor of it.
Secondly, two things were as clear then as they are now. 1) Mr. Bush isn’t going to do much to get the FMA passed. Yes, he’s made favorable mention of it in a couple of speeches. But that’s been the extent of his “effort.” And in any case, there just isn’t a lot a president can do about constitutional amendments. He can lend his moral support to them, but he plays no formal role in their ratification. Relatedly, 2) there aren’t the votes in the Senate to pass the Amendment. So if we allow ourselves to be practical for a moment, we’ll admit that George Bush’s nominal support for the FMA just doesn’t matter. We could hardly say the same about his views on the war on terror generally or the war in Iraq particularly.
As a gun owner and supporter of the Second Amendment, I most assuredly do not share Rudy Giuliani’s sympathy for gun control. But gun control isn’t going to play an important role in the 2008 presidential election; indeed, outside of liberal enclaves like San Francisco or Chicago, gun control is dead. And even the Democrats have no inclination to exhume it. As candidate or president, Mr. Giuliani isn’t going to champion any new gun-grabbing measures, and if he did, a Republican-controlled Congress isn’t going to enact them. In short, like Mr. Bush’s support for the FMA, Mr. Giuliani’s support for gun control is functionally irrelevant. That may not make him an ideal vote for gun owners. But it makes him a safe vote.
William F. Buckley Jr. once admonished conservatives to vote for the “rightward-most viable candidate.” But how to judge the candidate’s rightwardness (or viability)? We judge it in context, of course. In a campaign wherein it was a live question whether the United States should return to the gold standard, the candidate in favor would be the rightward-most. But do you think we’ll be talking about that in 2008? We won’t be talking about gun control, either.
ADDED — It’s all academic. It looks like Giuliani won’t run.
That was me. But let’s forget the 2A, and look at one other issue: is he electable?
Assuredly, no. Yes, metrocons will vote for him, but you can be quite sure he will not get the red state votes he needs. Liking Giuliani is one thing; voting for him as President is another.
I think the most electable candidate we have (ignoring those who insist they won’t run, like Condi) is George Allen. He needs to speak up and make a name for himself, but he could definitely pull the red state conservative vote. I can’t think of anyone else who could. Frist has no backbone. McCain doesn’t have a chance. Brownback is probably too conservative to pull the metrocon vote (Allen is not).
As for George Allen, I agree. Assuming Giuliani and Rice don’t run, he would be my next choice.