O'Thetical in '08!

I've read a lot of chatter lately, mostly among the "Christian Left" and RINO centrist right, that if we horrible Evangelical Right Wing Christians (ERWCs) could just "get over" this weird and creepy fixation with and opposition to abortion and the homosexual agenda, all would be well with the world and "real dialog" could begin across the aisles. No, I won't provide links, because I am lazy. There was one by some fellow on the front page of CNN late last week, so maybe you can go search for that. Anywho, I find this about as believable as the thesis that if we, as a civilization, just stop supporting Israel and/or cease and desist our hedonistic Western ways (e.g. holding hands on the first date and the bare ankles of the lady-types, peace be upon them), the Islamists would leave us alone.

But here's my real point: imagine if a committed fiscally liberal Democrat gained national prominence, but was staunchly pro-life (no wiggle-room here) and at least gave lip-service (backed up, at the very least, by a non-antithetical track record) against the aforementioned "homosexual agenda". We'll call him Hyman P. O'Thetical (Irish Catholic with a Jewish mother? It could happen). My thesis is that this individual, if he were capable of gaining the nomination of his party, would be the next President of the United States, and not by a small margin at all.

The existence of the ERWC cohort is rife with unobserved contradictions in the eyes of the MSM: we are eager rubber-stampers for anything and everything with the GOP seal-of-approval on it; we suckle at the teat of the Bush family and their Neo/Theocon handlers; meanwhile, we are the real kingmakers on the right; no Republican serves without our express approval, and failure by the current administration to directly substantively address abortion and gay marriage was the reason 2006 was so dismal for the GOP.

The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle. But speaking as a card-carrying member of the ERWCs, I can tell you this: I do indeed have a "litmus test" for national office-seekers over whose fate I have some control. Among candidates, I will immediately cull the pro-abortion and even the wishy-washy. Should this result in an empty set, my vote is either withheld or written in with a palatable alternative. Following that, I look to the gay-marriage question. My standards here aren't quite as strict, as truly moderate candidates on this issue may be tempered by extraordinarily-qualified positions on other issues. Point is, though, it takes a lot to get them past this stage without the proper position. Camel through the eye of the needle, and all that. Once past this stage, all candidates are weighed based on other fiscal and social merits. Club for Growth and/or NRA membership is a major plus (I use the latter -- or at least similar policy positions of the candidate -- as an almost-but-not-quite litmus test as well). But I digress...

Here's the rub: notice I never mentioned party affiliation in the above process. While I don't claim that I can speak for the entire ERWC population, it is my strong conjecture that many others like me feel the same way. They may care about privatize health care and retirement accounts, unfettered capitalism, unrestricted access to firearms, strong national foreign policy, states' rights, law-and-order, and a plethora of other issues, but the rights of the unborn and preservation of the traditional family trump all of those concerns.

Additionally, there is a large contingent among the ERWCs whose own economic and social positions, apart from abortion and gay marriage, mesh quite well with the Democrats. Supercifially, the uplifting of the downtrodden through government-mandated financial assistance sounds very appealing to many with a strong Christian ethos, as does supporting the elderly, striving for racial equality, preserving the environment, keeping the peace by eliminating violent weapons, et cetera, ad nauseaminfinitum. Please note I do not count myself among that particular number, and most sensible ERWCs realize that social support is best done through the Church itself, and prayer and action, rather than forcible government intervention, but nevertheless, that constituency is still there, and waiting for a chance to break ranks, stymied only by The Big Two.

And since I suspect there's no one, not even a libertarian, who is an "abortion and gay marriage Democrat" who would LOVE to vote for a Republican if only he were pro-abortion and pro-gay, Mr. O'Thetical would get his base's votes without a problem. Now just imagine a race between Giuliani and O'Thetical. Scary, isn't it?

Meanwhile, contra the position in my opening paragraph above, I don't believe the opposite to be true: that a pro-abortion, pro-gay, otherwise conservative candidate would see democrats and liberals flocking in droves to his corner. No, I cannot prove this, or even provide much in the way of evidence, but again consider the Giuliani scenario: Obama vs. Giuliani? I think Obama will win. Hillary vs. Giuliani? I shudder as I type, but again, I think Clinton would win. Edwards vs. Giuliani? Ok, Giuliani would mop the floor with him. But Edwards is a WORD DELETED PURSUANT TO THE ADVICE OF ANNE COULTER'S LAWYERS. (Note: the previous predictions are barring any terrorist activities on American soil in the intervening months -- otherwise Rudy G. will lock the "security mom" vote and it'll be all over for the Dems).

Of course, recall my qualifier from above: if he could get his party's nomination. That's a big if, and for the time being, those of you for whom fiscal conservatism trumps all can breathe easy. It ain't gonna happen any time soon. We can thank the lefty fever-swamp for that.

Addendum: If Hyman P. O'Thetical were also a outspoken, card-carrying, gun-toting member of the NRA and Individual-Right-Interpretation 2nd Ammendment supporter, he'd win over Glenn Reynolds and his ilk, and he'd win in a record-setting landslide -- possibly even an electoral shut-out!