The CW About Rudy In Iowa Is Wrong

DES MOINES -- Let’s play with a jaunty bit of Conventional Wisdom that’s showing up in just about every article we’ve seen previewing ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s trip to Iowa. It’s this: “ Can Giuliani win the favor of Iowa social conservatives who dominate the caucuses?”

Winning the favor is a very audacious goal for a cultural liberal. Let’s challenge the assumption: does a Republican candidate _need_ to win the hearts and minds of the “social” conservatives in order to win the Iowa caucuses? Can they instead win, say, one of the those two organs, or parts of one –a lobe or a ventricle, maybe.

First, if social conservatives who favor the holy quadrinity of Guns, Gays, Abortion and God do indeed exert their uniform influence on the caucuses, they’ve not historically chosen the candidate who best exemplifies those positions. That’s an obvious point, but it’s worth repeating with some detail: Neither George W. Bush, nor Steve Forbes in 2000 -- the two combined for 71 percent of the caucus vote -- were openly, unapologetically, and uncritically, social conservatives. Forbes tried to change his views on social issues and no one bought it; his 30% percent showing in 2000 has been variously attributed to economic issues (where Rudy sees a foothold) and to his moolah, which helped to bring supporters to the caucuses. Mr. Bush bonded with many evangelicals in Iowa and worked very hard overcome the doubts of Catholic conservatives – remember his conscious use of their language – “culture of life” and all that. Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer got 25%. In 1996, Bob Dole (not a socon) won with 26 percent of the vote.

If Dole could win – and remember, he won in a field without superstars – imagine how few actual votes the winner of the Iowa Republican caucuses needs to receive. If the Big Three – McCain, Rudy and Romney – are still in by Iowa, and if a few of the second tier candidates are still kicking, Rudy could win with a quarter of the vote. For a quarter of the votes, he doesn’t need to win the hearts of minds of social conservatives .

Now – he shouldn’t piss them off, either. Republican pollsters tend to divide the Republicans who gather at caucuses into three distinct groups. The social conservatives comprise about 35 percent of the electorate, although it’s more accurate to say that they are cultural/moral traditionalists rather than “social” conservatives, which implies concern for a broader range of issues. It’s safe to assume that these voters will never choose a social liberal, even if he does promise to appoint Sam Alitos to the court.

65 percent remain. Half of that 65 percent are social moderates. The rest are more conservative, but abortion and gay rights (and now, stem cells) aren’t litmus test issues for them. Again, that’s 65 percent of the caucus electorate who could reliably be persuaded to ignore a candidate’s cultural liberalism.
Rudy carries to Iowa an economic message. If he decides to fully compete here – and that decision has not been made – he will run as an economic conservative, a Forbist Supply Sider. He will not deliberately harden the hearts of cultural conservatives, for which John McCain spent the past seven years atoning.
The CW is true enough – there’s ENOUGH of a predisposition against cultural liberals. But it is not a prohibitive burden. The better question to ask is: who can Rudy attract right now? Given that there’s generally a 40 percent turnover from caucus to caucus, Rudy’s campaign could spend time and energy recruiting conservatives on college campuses – many of them have not known any other American hero. Or he could run as Nussle did, primarily, which was on his economic record and how a Giuliani administration could improve Iowa’s fiscal conditions. And here’s betting that just enough moral conservatives will wind up choosing their candidate the same way that dedicated liberals looked at their choices in 2004. Who’s the best general election candidate?
A side note: CW also holds that social conservatives have tight-knit, closely formed solidary groups capable of and expert in organizing, and organizing is all the rage for Iowa. A half truth: the Republican caucuses are straw polls, and while organization is necessary, it’s not sufficient and can be reproduced by a dedicated campaign with talented organizers and lots of money. (Not for nothing did a senior McCain aide tell us: “One thing I know our budget is, the Iowa people can have whatever they want.”) [MARC AMBINDER]

65 percent remain. Half of that 65 percent are social moderates. The rest are more conservative, but abortion and gay rights (and now, stem cells) aren’t litmus test issues for them. Again, that’s 65 percent of the caucus electorate who could reliably be persuaded to ignore a candidate’s cultural liberalism.
Rudy carries to Iowa an economic message. If he decides to fully compete here – and that decision has not been made – he will run as an economic conservative, a Forbist Supply Sider. He will not deliberately harden the hearts of cultural conservatives, for which John McCain spent the past seven years atoning.

The CW is true enough – there’s ENOUGH of a predisposition against cultural liberals. But it is not a prohibitive burden. The better question to ask is: who can Rudy attract right now? Given that there’s generally a 40 percent turnover from caucus to caucus, Rudy’s campaign could spend time and energy recruiting conservatives on college campuses – many of them have not known any other American hero. Or he could run as Nussle did, primarily, which was on his economic record and how a Giuliani administration could improve Iowa’s fiscal conditions. And here’s betting that just enough moral conservatives will wind up choosing their candidate the same way that dedicated liberals looked at their choices in 2004. Who’s the best general election candidate?

A side note: CW also holds that social conservatives have tight-knit, closely formed solidary groups capable of and expert in organizing, and organizing is all the rage for Iowa. A half truth: the Republican caucuses are straw polls, and while organization is necessary, it’s not sufficient and can be reproduced by a dedicated campaign with talented organizers and lots of money. (Not for nothing did a senior McCain aide tell us: “One thing I know our budget is, the Iowa people can have whatever they want.”)