Ron Paul Creams Rudolph Giuliani in Iowa

There is no question about it; Ron Paul absolutely smoked Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 Iowa Republican Caucuses. Paul beat Giuliani by a margin of 6 points, which is more than double the margin that Fred Thompson and John McCain beat Paul. In fact, Paul stayed neck-and-neck with McCain for most of the count, but Giuliani never even came close.

Giuliani and Paul squared off last May in a Republican debate over whether terrorists attack the United States because its citizens are happy and free or because the federal government antagonizes the planet. When Paul claimed that terrorists are motivated by American foreign policy, Giuliani demagogued that Paul recant his statement. On Friday, Iowa voters, by a ratio of 2.5: 1, demanded that Giuliani recant his. But there are even more subtleties to this Republican fracture than meets the eye.

Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul adhere to opposite positions on the Republican philosophical spectrum. Giuliani surrounds himself with neoconservatives who hold similar positions to the Democratic base on matters of domestic policy, but who maintain an aggressive foreign policy positions in spite of all ostensible failures. Paul hails from Goldwater-conservatism, which insists on protecting domestic civil liberties above everything else, including foreign policy.

To further illustrate this contrast, one can look to the pundit’s reactions to the May debate. While the Sean Hannity Camp called the debate a win for Giuliani, old-school conservatives Pat Buchanan and John McLaughlin called it for Ron Paul. Of course, neither actually won the debate because they never argued on the merits of their assertions. But it is fair to say that scholars and the 9/11 commission report largely agree with Paul’s view.

Giuliani’s campaign is simply rotting away. He can no longer claim to be the frontrunner, he lost his position as a major fundraiser to Ron Paul, and now he has come in dead last in Iowa (unless you include Duncan Hunter). Worse, he has surrounded himself with advisors who are partially responsible for Bush’s disastrous foreign policy.

One of those advisors is David Frum, who wrote Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech. Frum has been overtly hostile to original conservatives calling them “paleoconservatives” and insisting that “we turn our backs on them." Whatever. The line of turned backs is hardly imposing as neoconservative ranks thin, people like Frum, Kristol, and Pearle become anathemas, and the country hears their voices get more shrill and senseless.

Giuliani’s inclusion of Frum is strange, but it’s an understandable choice. Giuliani would barely register on the national radar if not for the post 9/11 images of him marching down the street and giving orders. Of course, he would not have been on the streets were it not for his insistence that his command center be built inside the World Trade Center.

Still Frum’s “axis of evil” influence can hardly be useful to Giuliani. The jig is up. Iran is not working on nuclear weapons, the Iraq war could not be won by 40,000 troops and a six-week engagement as Frum’s co-author Richard Pearle once predicted, and Americans are now privy to the war’s effect on the American economy. Worse for Giuliani, no one is really interested in hearing lurid, hyperbolic descriptions of Muslim countries. The emotionalism of 9/11 is wearing off and “staying on the offensive against terrorism”, loses its appeal when in actuality, deployed troops spend most of their time on defense. Frum’s influence in politics reminds me of Mel Gibson’s influence in movies. Sure, Braveheart was an amazing flick and its violence seemed warranted, but Apocalypto’s comes off as gratuitous when there is no longer a clear purpose.

Frum insists that Giuliani offers domestic change and describes the other candidates’ platforms as status quo appeals on par with the Reagan-Bush turnover in 1988. While it is not entirely clear what Giuliani will do, Frum ardently advocates such oxymoronic ideas as “conservative” socialized healthcare programs. If that is Giuliani’s platform as well, then fine. But both Giuliani and Frum owe conservatives an explanation as to how the redistribution of tax money for health programs can be 1) conservative and 2) managed without levying more taxes.

This is not to say that Giuliani is altogether sunk. He will, no doubt, beat Ron Paul and others in some states, but his insistence that the U.S. continue its presence in Iraq will eventually end his campaign. Watching layman speakers at the Iowa Caucuses made this all-the-more clear to me. One man said that he wanted McCain for president so he can credibly get us out of Iraq in a sort-of ‘It took Nixon to go to China’-maneuver. It’s clear that Republicans want Ron Paul’s non-interventionism back in the Party, they’re just split about which candidate will best accomplish it. In contrast, Giuliani cannot take that tack without being seen as a pandering hypocrite.

I am sure that a cursory conversation with Giuliani or Frum would convince me that their policies originated from a genuine concern for the well-being of the United States. However, their unwillingness to re-analyze those policies from a perspective that most Americans hold strikes me as prideful self-indulgence. And therein lies the essential difference between Giuliani’s supporters and the rest of the Republican Party: hubris vs. common sense. Giuliani’s considerable political-capital investment into current foreign policy means that he cannot publicly back down without coming off as a pandering hypocrite. So too, many Republican voters are loathe to publicly retract assertions that somehow the war helps the United States. Fortunately for them, if not Giuliani, ballots are secret. It will take more than just pride to overcome the obvious problems in Giuliani’s platform when those voters are hidden away in polling booths. It didn’t happen in Iowa. It probably won’t happen at all.