There’s a more immediate political logic to the position too. In 2008, Perry backed a nemesis of religious conservatives. “For all his new found commitment to hyper-conservatism,” Mike Huckabee recently wrote of Perry in an email to supporters, “he’ll get to explain why he supported pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage Rudy Giuliani last time.” It appears that Perry has settled on this explanation: Those are state matters. Pragmatic social conservatives should be satisfied by his stance. Returning abortion to the states, via federalist Supreme Court justices, is the best they can do. ~Conor Friedersdorf

Via Andrew

Conor is right that Perry is using federalist arguments partly to explain his previous endorsement of Giuliani, and maybe social conservatives should be satisfied by this stance, but we need only look back to the ill-fated Fred Thompson campaign in 2007-08 to remember that most social conservatives are not satisfied by it. Thompson’s campaign was plagued by many problems, chief among them the candidate’s lack of interest in campaigning, but Huckabee attacked Thompson’s federalism as a sign of weakness on social issues. Huckabee was and is something of a pro-life absolutist. This was one reason why he became a competitive candidate as the standard-bearer of evangelicals and social conservatives.

Returning these matters to the states may be the best social conservatives can do (I think it is), but it is not what they want to do. Conor underestimates the extent to which pro-life and traditional marriage activists see these issues in terms of stark moral struggle. Pro-life activists don’t liken themselves to abolitionists and civil rights activists just to be cute. To a large degree, many of them see themselves as advocates for a righteous cause that cannot be impeded or limited by questions of jurisdiction, and they see pro-life federalist arguments as unacceptable compromises on a moral issue where there ultimately should not be any meaningful compromise. I made an argument similar to Conor’s about Ron Paul’s federalist views a few months ago in response to Joe Carter’s criticism of Paul and federalism. While I don’t share Carter’s view of Paul or federalism, I don’t doubt that he is far more representative of social conservatives around the country.

Theoretically, Perry’s federalism should be satisfactory, but then so should Gary Johnson’s or Ron Paul’s, and it is no secret that most social conservatives don’t see it that way. As they see it, and as most activists of all stripes usually see it, an appeal to federalism is a signal that a given issue isn’t important enough to be addressed at the national level. This reflects the bias that all Americans share to one degree or another that “we” are not taking a particular issue seriously enough unless the central government is involved. This confuses the question of which authority has jurisdiction with whether or not something ought to be a priority, but it is a fairly common assumption. An important reason why federalist appeals tend to fall flat with most activists is that they recognize that power has been greatly centralized, and candidates that show no interest in deploying centralized power for their agenda are not going to capture their attention and support. That doesn’t mean that centralists ever deliver for social conservatives. For the most part, they don’t and they never will. Social conservatives would be better-served supporting a federalist approach to their issues, and many of the real successes of the pro-life movement have been at the state level, but that isn’t going to help Perry once he gets in the race. When it comes to presidential politics, social conservatives want to find a candidate who sees these causes in uncompromising, absolute terms, and Perry has just announced that he doesn’t see them this way.

P.S. The vaccine controversy may also jeopardize Perry’s standing with some social conservatives, but that is a distinct issue of something that Perry did while governor. It may not become much of an issue, because in the end the Texas legislature effectively undid his order, but it is something that other candidates can use to create doubt in the minds of voters.