Posted by
on Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:31:16 PM
Captain Ed picks up on a piece from Steven Malanga on the conservatism of Rudy Giuliani:By the time Giuliani challenged Dinkins for a second time, in 1993 (his first try had failed), the former prosecutor had fashioned a philosophy of local government based on two core conservative principles vastly at odds with New York’s political culture: that government should be accountable for delivering basic services well, and that ordinary citizens should be personally responsible for their actions and their destiny and not expect government to take care of them. Giuliani preached the need to reestablish a “civil society,” where citizens adhered to a “social contract.” “If you have a right,” he observed, “there is a duty that goes along with that right.” Later, when he became mayor, Giuliani would preach about the duties of citizenship, quoting the ancient Athenian Oath of Fealty: “We will revere and obey the city’s laws. . . . We will strive unceasingly to quicken the public sense of civic duty. Thus in all these ways we will transmit this city not only not less, but far greater and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.”
In New York, where generations of liberal policy had produced a city in which one in seven citizens lived off government benefits, in which lawbreakers whose actions diminished everyone else’s quality of life were routinely ignored or excused, in which the rights of those who broke the law were often defended vigorously over the rights of those who adhered to it, Giuliani’s prescriptions for an urban revival based on shared civic values seemed unrealistic to some and dangerous to others. The head of the local American Civil Liberties Union chapter described Giuliani’s ideas on respect for authority and the law as “frightening” and “scary.” But New Yorkers who had watched their city deteriorate were more frightened of life under an outdated and ineffective liberal agenda. ...
For Giuliani, the revival of New York started with securing public safety, because all other agendas were useless if citizens didn’t feel protected. “The most fundamental of civil rights is the guarantee that government can give you a reasonable degree of safety,” Giuliani said. He aimed to do so by reinstituting respect for the law. As a federal prosecutor in New York in the 1980s, he had vigorously hunted low-level drug dealers—whom other law enforcement agencies ignored—because he thought that the brazen selling of drugs on street corners cultivated disrespect for the law and encouraged criminality. “You have to . . . dispel cynicism about law enforcement by showing we treat everyone alike, whether you are a major criminal or a low-level drug pusher,” Giuliani explained.
We are supporters of Rudy Giuliani. Yes, we disagree with his stance on guns. The Second Amendment is the most important right enumerated in the Constitution. Without it, we cannot defend our rights. Now he may think that certain guns should not be in certain hands. That is fine by us, but there are ways--legally--to obtain the firearms that we feel we need for our protection. Granted, we can get into the debate of whether or not people really need an automatic rifle, i.e., assault rifle, to protect themselves. That is a debate for another day. I would rather listen to what he says about firearms than taking a guess at it.
He maintains, what Captain Ed calls, a "centrist" position on abortion. Actually, I think the position is more like ours. Abortion, morally, is repugnant. However it is the law of the land right now, and until the Supreme Court decides to reexamine the issue and overturn it, it will remain the law of the land. But should it ever be overturned, it will go back to being within the purview of the states. The states should have held onto the ability to decide, for themselves, whether this issue should be legal or illegal under the Tenth Amendment. At the time of the infamous decision, over twenty-five states had outlawed the procedure unless it was a case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. We believe that Rudy would gladly welcome the ability for the states to decide the issue, and more than likely about half of the nation would probably keep the practice alive.
His other position that we sort of agree with is that of gay marriage. Morally, we cannot support the legalization of the practice. However, we defer to the law. The voters--the people--should have the right to decide this issue. This should not be a decision of the courts. This is not something that is under the power of the federal government. It is something that falls under the provision of the Tenth Amendment. The people have a right to decide. That, if it is his stance, we can live with.
I do think that far too many conservatives have sold Rudy short. I think that deep down he is a conservative much in the way that we are. He is a lawyer, and understands the law quite well. If he is in favor of deferring to the Constitution, which is the proper course of action, then there is really nothing wrong with the man. If people are opposed to him because of his personal baggage, that is their opinion, and they are welcome to it. But they also need to stop pushing the idea that because of personal decisions in his life he is not a conservative.
Show me a conservative without sin, and I will shgow you the next messiah. It is not possible to go around without any sort of personal problems. To be fair and honest, Thomas and I lived together before we were married. No, we were not intimate, but the idea of cohabitation will have our detractors pointing at us and proclaiming we do not adhere to the conservative ideology. On the contrary, we do; each day, everyday. Our personal lives do not make us a conservative. Our ideology, our political beliefs, do.
The other thing that has to be taken into consideration when it comes to Rudy is that he has ten times more leadership experience than ANY other candidate running, with the exception of Mitt Romney. Mitt, of course, did not have to deal with the literal fallout from 9/11. Rudy did. He was there everyday assuring the nation that they were doing everything possible to help those still trapped in the rubble, and continued to tell America that we would recover. He was right. We have recovered. Complain about Ground Zero and the time it took to get going on rebuilding, but you cannot blame Rudy for that. He was out of office by the time that fiasco started.
Our ideal ticket for 2008 would be a Giuliani/Romney ticket, or vice versa. But in all seriousness, compared to the other Republicans that will be in the race, they do not stand a chance. And that ticket will give the Democrats the most fits. Two leaders--one a former governor of a blue state; the other a mayor that had to contend with the worst terrorist attack in United States history--that can take the experience they possess, and brow beat the Democrats into submission. Both men are strong on national security, strong on keeping taxes low, and they stand firmly against jurists that embrace judicial activism.
That, to us, are the prime reasons why they should handily defeat the likes of John McCain, Duncan Hunter, Tommy Thompson, Newt Gingrich, etc., etc. And when it comes to challenging the Democrats, none of their candidates have a chance against such a ticket, provided the cards are played right. Go and read Mr. Malanga's piece for an in depth analysis of Rudy's conservatism. He makes the case better than anyone has, thus far, that Rudy could and would be a good choice for the Republican nomination in 2008.
Marcie