Post-mortem on a columnist’s pro-Giuliani campaign

It has been interesting to follow the young libertarian Ryan Sager’s columns on the Giuliani candidacy in the New York Post and New York Sun over the last year. In April 2007, summing up my impression of several pieces of his I had read, I wrote that Sager

has been a big Giuliani supporter, dismissing out of hand any notion that Giuliani would not be acceptable to social conservatives, and declaring that the only thing that matters is that Giuliani is a strong leader who can win the election and defend the country from bad guys. The fact that Giuliani has a very questionable personal history and a way-out record as a social liberal doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, Sager confidently assures us.

Yet in today’s New York Post, Sager, in an anticipatory post-mortem on the Giuliani candidacy, says of Giuliani’s “late start” strategy:

It was always a risky strategy—but a pro-choice New York City ex-mayor has no safe strategy for chasing the GOP nomination. [Italics added.]

Wow. I have nothing against Sager personally (other than the tiny matter that he can’t write a column without at least once calling opponents of open borders haters or bigots), but that comment really takes gall. A year ago Sager wasn’t calling the Giuliani campaign risky. He was eagerly anticipating a Giuliani takeover of the GOP, based on his belief that the GOP had matured beyond its backwards, backwoods social conservatism and was ready to support a big-city, twice-divorced, homosexual-pride-marching social liberal.

As for Sager’s explanation of the failure of Giuliani’s campaign, his point seems to be that Giuliani has lost because he ran too hard to the right. Meaning that Sager wanted him to run as an out-of-the-closet candidate of social liberalism:

For a time, the prospect of a Giuliani candidacy excited those of us who think the GOP has gone wildly off course under President Bush—with out-of-control spending and pandering to the Christian Right. And to those of us who think the Republican Congress’ tear against immigrants is both bigoted and unwise politically

On which I have two comments:

1. “Tear against immigrants”? The GOP didn’t do ANYTHING about or against immigrants. It was merely responding to and rejecting Bush’s radical move for amnesty and open borders.

2. It somehow doesn’t occur to the politically wise Sager that if you want to attract people to your side, you don’t call them bigoted for expecting that their country’s borders be protected. In fact, Sager’s name-calling suggests that his intent was never for Giuliani to win over conservatives, but for Giuliani to win the nomination in order to drive the social conservatives and the open-immigration opponents out of the Republican party and turn the party into a social-liberal party.

Sager continues:

Giuliani was running a hard-right campaign, and that didn’t play in New Hampshire, a state with a moderate GOP electorate. He wasted most of the fall dueling with Romney over who hates immigrants more.

That’s now three times Ryan has said “bigoted,” “hate” or “tear against immigrants” in one column. He equates enforcing our countries laws with hatred. And on that basis he expected Giuliani to gain the support of the Republican party? Is this guy deluded or what?

Then Sager tells about what was for him the final straw:

In January, [Giuliani] launched a sickening ad packed with images of protesting Muslims, bombings and Osama bin Laden. The message was clear: Terrorists want to kill your children! Vote Rudy!

Now I’m confused: Sager has always touted Rudy as the candidate of national security against terrorism. But now he’s turning against Rudy because he ran a tv ad emphasizing anti-terrorism.

In any case, notwithstanding his contradictions, Sager’s diagnosis is that Giuliani failed, not because of his late state strategy, but because he tried too hard to appeal to conservatives. Instead of calling conservatives bigots and prudes, or at least refusing to appeal to their bigotry and prudery, he tried to win their votes and thus compromised himself. That’s why Sager is disappointed in Rudy and feels he deserves to lose. He ends the column on a bitter note:

The best thing Giuliani can do now is to bow out gracefully should he come up with anything less than a win tomorrow. He had his chance and wasted it: The least he can do now is stop wasting our time.

Ramesh Ponnuru at the Corner adroitly condenses the meaning of Sager’s column:

Why Giuliani Failed [Ramesh Ponnuru]
He alienated Ryan Sager. I’d say this column is more a symptom of Giuliani’s decline than a persuasive analysis of it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 28, 2008 05:28 PM | Send