Undeterred by the Pope’s implication that he should be excommunicated over his position on abortion, Rudy Guiliani tackled his social liberalism directly yesterday in a speech at Houston Baptist University.

The speech by Mr. Giuliani reflected a decision — other campaigns suggested “gamble” might be a better word — to address head-on a fundamental obstacle to his winning the nomination: his long history as a moderate Northeast Republican in a party increasingly dominated by Southern and Midwestern conservatives.

As someone that lived in the New York City media market for most of Rudy Guiliani’s mayorality, I know about the real Guiliani. I don’t want to debate the real Guiliani. I want to talk about the decision his campaign has now taken to stick to his prior stated positions, and what it will mean if he is successful in winning the nomination.

As a caveat here, we must recognize that Guiliani has flip-flopped over late-term abortions and the Hyde Amendment, so he isn’t sticking entirely to his pro-choice guns. Nonetheless, this is the ground he laid out yesterday.

“Where people of good faith, people who are equally decent, equally moral and equally religious, when they come to different conclusions about this, about something so very very personal, I believe you have to respect their viewpoint,” he said. “You give them a level of choice here.”

Again, I don’t want to debate Guiliani’s political calculation here. Is he sticking to his pro-choice view because it is less harmful than waffling? Was he ever really pro-choice, or was that a calculation, too? Will he really appoint pro-choice judges? We can’t know the answers to those questions. But, we can talk about what it will mean if Guiliani succeeds in winning the nomination.

Let’s think about that. Yesterday Guiliani also expressed support for domestic partnerships for gay/lesbian couples (but not marriage) and he defended his calls for stricter gun control when he was mayor.

Looking back on recent elections, the Republicans have used guns, gays, and God (in the role of an opponent of reproductive rights) very heavily. What happens when you largely take those issues off the table?

The first thing it does is deregionalize the election. Guiliani will be as competitive in New York and California as he is in Ohio and Florida.

The election will turn on issues of war and peace, terrorism, health care, the economy…but not over so-called cultural issues.

Another consequence will be that the GOP will not have a unified voice. When the Republicans have been successful in the past, they have seized on a few narrow themes and hammered them home with relentless unanimity (up and down the ticket).

All through the mid-Atlantic and New England, Republicans will breathe a sigh of relief and believe it is safe to go in the water again.

Democrats in socially conservative districts will feel a little less polarization.

Guiliani will have to cobble together a new coalition. Whether or not he succeeds, it will leave an imprint on the two major parties for years to come. The Republican brand will be changed.

The most likely strategy for Guiliani involves a major fear campaign that emphasizes a strong military, harsh measures for terror suspects along with aggressive tactics by our intelligence agencies. He’ll keep us safe from attack and know what to do in a crisis if we are attacked. This will open up a second liability. Not only will he go after the presidency without pandering (in the traditional sense) to social conservatives, but he will openly alienate libertarians.

In response, the Democrats will probably work to increase apathy from social conservatives while actively courting libertarians. The best way to do this is to question warrantless wiretapping, torture, raise the Terry Schiavo case, and talk about keeping the federal government out of our bedrooms.

Guiliani has the potential to rescue the Republican brand and break the regional polarization of the parties. If he can capture the imagination of suburbanites with a message of lower taxes, less regulation, keeping the city streets safe, lowering crime, maintaining a strong national defense…then he can bring back the old Republican Party as it existed under Nixon. It won’t be any prettier than Nixon’s coalition…but it would still be a welcome change.

Provided he doesn’t win the Presidency, we will see an improvement in domestic politics without having to suffer any foreign policy consequences.

What do you think?