Lack of real opposition to Giuliani shows my 2004 prediction correct

To say that the GOP is in terrible shape is an understatement. The GOP is lost, it is gone. Rudolph Giuliani, a politician who should be anathema to most Republicans, seems to be sailing toward nomination, with no real resistance to him manifesting anywhere in the Republican/conservative universe, by which I really mean: with no one in a position of influence pointing to his total inappropriateness as Republican nominee or president. It’s a nightmare for genuine conservatives. Instead of seeing the Republicans wake up from the sleep-state induced in them by Bush who led them so far to the left, we see them descending into an even deeper sleep-state for the sake of Giuliani, who will lead them even farther to the left. “No, no, not sleep but death,” to paraphrase Yeats. “Was it needless death after all?”

The absence of passionate Republican opposition to the prospect of Giuliani as their standard bearer confirms a prediction I made all through the 2004 election cycle of what would happen if Bush won re-election—that he would complete his transformation of the Republican party into a liberal party.

Here is part of a VFR discussion on this subject from September 2003:

Bush is a liberal in disguise. I hope he does lose. I’m praying for it even as much as I hate the Democratic party. Both parties are traitors to the American people and everyone needs to wake up and vote both these parties out rather then have us exist under this “lesser evil”, really no choice system. Bush will lose because the economy is in the toilet. Every Republican I know is beyond disgusted. The Right Wing Christians have realized he isn’t really on their side. Course lets hope we get to have an election the way things or going or its one where the votes actually count. Somehow I doubt it.

Posted by: Victoria on September 17, 2003 12:41 PM

I have to second Victoria. I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000, but still favored him over Gore. But now I actively hope that Bush loses, and I say that even though the Democrats are evil crazy anti-American leftists who will do untold harm if they win. I hope Bush loses because, first, he deserves to lose as a result of his innumerable betrayals of fundamental principles, most importantly his endorsement of race preferences; and secondly, because it represents the only hope of reviving some kind of national conservative opposition to the left. Bush has completed the liberalization of the Republican party, and even to a large extent of the conservative movement itself. As long as a “conservative” is in the White House, the brain-dead, rah-rah conservatives will support him no matter how liberal he is. Therefore the only way to revive conservatism in this country is to have the openly evil, anti-American leftists running the government.

What this would mean for the war on terror and our national security is too awful to contemplate, but we CANNOT continue allowing our culture to be destroyed because, as John Podhoretz puts it, no other issues matter besides the war on terrorism.

He wrote recently that the culture war died on 9/11, and “good riddance.” And that reflects generally how neocons and mainstream conservatives think. We cannot continue down that road.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on September 17, 2003 1:00 PM

* * *

While the situation is dire, it’s not exactly lose-lose. I agree with Unadorned’s logic, and it’s one of my main reasons for wanting Bush to lose. If he succeeds in being re-elected, after having sold out every conservative and Republican principle (except of course national defense and patriotism, which is the one thing that keeps all the “conservatives” supporting him despite his liberalism in every other area), then that will put the seal on his liberal transformation of the Republican party and the conservative movement. The GOP will have become a permanently liberal party, pro racial preferences, pro-big government, and so on. The only way to prevent that happening is for him to be defeated. The electoral discrediting of Bush’s betrayals and a subsequent recoil of the GOP away from Bushism would be a positive gain in itself, regardless of what the Dems do.

Of course, a Bush defeat doesn’t guarantee the result I’ve just described. The Republicans could very well conclude that Bush lost because he was not liberal enough! Nevertheless, the defeat of Bush at least opens the possibility of a GOP turn away from his liberal direction, while a Bush win eliminates that possibility.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on September 18, 2003 6:50 AM

- end of initial entry -

John D. writes:

You write: “Rudolph Giuliani, a politician who should be anathema to most Republicans, seems to be sailing toward nomination, with no real resistance to him manifesting anywhere in the Republican/conservative universe, by which I really mean: with no one in a position of influence pointing to his total inappropriateness as Republican nominee or president”

This is not entirely accurate. Dr. James Dobson, who carries a wealth of influence with the Christian right has indeed stated that Giuliani in not an appropriate candidate for the GOP nomination. As I’m certain you are aware, Dobson has been known wreak havoc for a multitude of political candidates.

LA replies:

John D. is of course correct, and I should have mentioned that. At the same time, in the usual conservative political publications, these statements about Giuliani are not being said. You hear one or two voices raised agianst him here and there, like Maggie Gallagher, but the general attitude is that Giuliani is acceptable as the nominee.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 26, 2007 01:12 AM | Send