Posted on 02/26/2007 7:08:07 AM PST by areafiftyone
When Rudolph Giuliani first ran for mayor of New York in 1989, he made a critical mistake. Assuming that he'd be running against the blue-collar, socially conservative Democrat Ed Koch, Giuliani cast himself as a liberal. Playing against his tough-guy image, he spent his first months on the campaign trail talking about the victims of homelessness and AIDS and drug abuse, causes that united elite liberals and poor minority voters while leaving the city's shrinking middle class cold. The prosecutor who brought down mob boss Anthony "Fat Tony" Salerno and Wall Street renegade Ivan Boesky tried to reinvent himself as the original "compassionate conservative," and the ethnic Catholic who had once considered the priesthood flip-flopped on abortion and became an avowed pro-choicer.
Then fate intervened: David Dinkins defeated Koch in the Democratic primary, and Giuliani became, by necessity if not by design, the candidate of the unfashionable middle-class strivers living in the outer boroughs, voters who recognized something of themselves in Giuliani, a self-made Italian-American from Brooklyn. Thus was born the polarizing, hard-charging, and proudly uncompassionate Giuliani who, after losing to Dinkins in 1989, beat him in 1993 and went on to transform New York.
Almost two decades later, though, Giuliani seems at risk of following his 1989 playbook, selling himself as something he's not--this time, a George W. Bush Republican--in the hopes that his celebrity and high favorability ratings will allow him to win the GOP nomination without a fight. Or at least that seems to be the underlying logic of Giuliani's ultra-cautious noncampaign so far. With the exception of a handful of social issues where an explicit flip-flop would look too craven even by today's standards, Giuliani, a sui generis figure, is improbably presenting himself as the kind of unremarkable Bush conservative whose domestic agenda starts with tax cuts and ends with "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Which is too bad, because an orthodox, Grover Norquist-approved Republican candidate is precisely what the party doesn't need--and precisely what Giuliani wasn't during his two terms as mayor. His genius wasn't for cutting government ("down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub," as Norquist famously put it) but rather for reforming it and making it work for the working and middle-class taxpayers who elected him, rather than elite liberals who had run City Hall into the ground. He offered a municipal version of the reformism that governors like Wisconsin's Tommy Thompson (who passed on his welfare czar to Giuliani) and Michigan's John Engler pursued at the state level in the 1990s--a conservatism targeted explicitly to voters who wanted to keep the welfare state in place but didn't want the Democrats to run it.
This was the tradition that George W. Bush, another successful nineties governor, was supposed to revive in his 2000 campaign, after the Gingrich revolutionaries lost their way. But while Bush's instincts were sound, his insistence on "compassion" as the appropriate attitude toward the poor struck exactly the wrong note. It spoke to upper-middle class feelings of noblesse oblige, not to the aspirations of poor Americans with a drive to succeed. As Mickey Kaus argued when the Bush campaign theme was first unveiled in 1999, the language of compassion has an inegalitarian and even condescending edge. Worse, it effaces the all-important distinction between those who deserve public assistance and those who do not.
Giuliani, by contrast, has always been a "respect" conservative. Delivering safe streets to New Yorkers wasn't an act of magnanimity, but rather an obligation. And, as Giuliani made clear, citizens and public servants were expected to fulfill their obligations as well. Anyone who failed to abide by this basic contract, whether a petty thief or a police commander who failed to meet crime-reduction targets, would be held accountable.
As commonplace as this might sound, it's difficult to overstate how dramatic a break it was with the city's reigning political culture. As mayor, Giuliani stood almost alone against the tendency Fred Siegel dubbed "dependent individualism"--the noxious idea that individuals ought to be freed from obligations to family and community through the largesse of a generous welfare system. "Dependent individualism" fueled the rise of a new class of ethnic shakedown artists. Unlike the old patronage machines, which trafficked in corruption yet delivered tangible benefits and served as engines of political assimilation, self-appointed spokesmen for "the Community" like Al Sharpton demanded deference while offering nothing but bluster and veiled threats. Their chants of "no justice, no peace"--that is, threats of civil violence designed to intimidate authority--brought the Dinkins administration to its knees.
Because Sharpton had no respect for public order, Giuliani had no respect for Sharpton and all those who mimicked Sharpton's contemptuous disregard for authority. Instead, he insisted on subjecting all comers to a single standard, even if it meant taking a political hit. An emblematic moment came in July 1999 when Giuliani, increasingly
It's difficult to imagine a "compassionate conservative" saying anything like this. And such impolitic honesty helps explain why Giuliani spent much of his second term as an unpopular figure--in spite of plunging crime rates and welfare rolls, and New York's economic comeback--before 9/11 transformed him into "America's mayor." Once Giuliani tamed the ungovernable city, he suddenly seemed too tough and hard-edged even for New York.
But after the drift and incompetence of the Bush years, it's easy to see how "respect conservatism" could be presented as a tonic for what ails the country, and as a way for the Giuliani campaign to distinguish its candidate from the incumbent. (One can only imagine how Hizzoner would have reacted to the Abramoff or Enron scandals, or Hurricane Katrina, or the mismanagement of the Iraq war.) A Giuliani domestic agenda that builds on his reputation for tough-minded competence could translate into policies that unite conservatives and independent voters.
On immigration, for instance, a "respect conservatism" might marry Giuliani's avowed support for earned legalization to what Hudson fellow John Fonte has called "civic conservatism," which emphasizes assimilation and civic education and rejects multiculturalism and multilingualism. Instead of Bush-style compassion for new arrivals, civic conservatism would offer them a fair shake--the opportunity to become Americans, but only if they're willing to embrace America's common culture and language.
Moreover, Giuliani could cast any immigration reform as part of a broader effort to reform homeland security, which has become something of a punchline during the Bush years. The national infrastructure--electricity grids, ports, railroads, and highways--presents an inviting target, and the uncertain state of the war on terror makes it likely that many Americans will be looking for a candidate who promises to shore up defenses at home. Giuliani's past makes this a natural campaign issue for him: As a foe of lawbreakers and a tamer of bureaucracies, he's perfectly positioned to make the case for, say, a new push for border security that reduces the threat posed by immigrant gangs, or a reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that a Katrina-style debacle never happens again, or a broader plan to shore up infrastructure by strengthening and decentralizing the networks that sustain industrial civilization.
Meanwhile, because "respect conservatism" is premised on treating all people as equals, Giuliani the candidate would be a natural spokesman for a renewed attack on racial preferences, a still potent issue that President Bush abandoned, finding it ill-suited to his "compassion" agenda. But attacking preferences and offering nothing in their place is a narrow strategy that's unlikely to inspire voters, particularly younger voters deeply invested in the dramatic gains made by women and minorities in recent years. By proposing a grand bargain that replaces preferences with either class-based affirmative action or wage subsidies designed to expand the middle class, Giuliani could take the fight to liberalism: Why do you want to divide the disadvantaged by race, he could ask, when you can include them in a flourishing economy?
Then there's the economy, where Democratic populists have adopted a political rhetoric that poormouths America and paints middle class families as victims. Like President Bush's language of compassion, there's a condescending message behind all this economic fear-mongering, and it offers an opening for a "respect conservative" to acknowledge working-class struggles but emphasize the importance of civic and personal responsibility, both in the boardroom and the bedroom. The Rudy Giuliani who took down Ivan Boesky could be an ideal critic of corporate irresponsibility, for instance, and the mayor who once scolded Margarita Rosario for raising her son to be a criminal might be the right man to take on the relationship between economic insecurity and America's epidemic of fatherlessness.
Such an agenda, not incidentally, would offer a sharp contrast not only with President Bush, but with John McCain, Giuliani's principal rival for the nomination. Where McCain tends to embrace the elite media's pet causes, from campaign finance reform to the patient's bill of rights, a Giuliani "respect conservatism" would be proudly anti-elitist, emphasizing issues that resonate with working and middle class Americans. It would be pitched not to the media, but to the voters who made Rudy mayor--and who might make him president as well.
Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam are writing a book on Sam's Club Republicans.
(((((rudy ping))))
NARAL Republicans posting Rudy spam ping.
Wow. National Review jumping on the Rudy bandwagon? What happened to NR?
National Review? Reads like USA Today.
Win at any cost, sacrifice any principle.
How grown up of you to call all 200 of us that.
Whatever. I'm not lowering myself to your level by calling you guys names back. Have fun.
"Giuliani, increasingly unpopular over a series of police shootings, faced off on his call-in radio program against Margarita Rosario, the mother of a young man who had been shot and killed by two detectives four years earlier. Rather than accept Rosario's version of events, Giuliani challenged her at every turn, carefully recounting the details of her son's encounter with the police and his long rap sheet. At one point, he bluntly suggested the blame for her son's death might lie with her own poor parenting: "Maybe you should ask yourself some questions about the way he was brought up and the things that happened to him."
The thing that gets me is that so many of the people that are so against Rudy are actually the ones that would love him the most if they saw him in action. The above quote is an example. What I always liked about Rudy is that he's an unapologetic, sometimes vicious logical thinker that doesn't take any crap from anyone.
I know it sounds crazy to some and I know he's weak on social issues, but I do believe Rudy's policies will be far tougher than Bush's. Not only in the WOT, but fighting the Dems here at home.
I am pro-life. But I am also a 40+ year resident of the NY-Metro area, and I support Rudy Giuliani over the pro-lifers who won't have a snowball's chance in Hell against Shrillary, et al.
Yeah. It could be the first election in history where both party's candidates shared the exact same slogan. Scary, ain't it?
What a terrific, terrific article. So much for the looneytoons on Free Republic who wish to paint Rudy as a liberal.
What the hell's he gonna fight 'em on? He agrees with their entire platform.
"Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." - Rudy Giuliani
That's what is known as "whistling past the graveyard."
Good for you and Welcome! :-)
---"I am pro-life."---
No, you're Pro-Rudy. You're supporting NARAL's candidate of choice.
If you are somehow personally Pro-Life, it clarly has no impact on either your world view. Bu
Sorry. If you want your words to match your actions, you gotta pick one or the other.
He already showed he's not afraid of terrorists and doesn't suck up to them by kicking Arafat out of NY and also shoving a $10 million dollar check in a Saudi Princes' face!
Ignore them. You will get that on every Rudy thread. Not worth the paper it's written on. They will call you everyname in the book.
Good. Then it should be simple enough for even you to understand.
"So much for the looneytoons on Free Republic who wish to paint Rudy as a liberal."
To: nopardons
Right. There are no conservatives up to the task. Never have been, never will be. So we should just automatically throw out all principle and roll over for an abortionist, gay rights loving, gun grabbing liberal who's never been elected to any office higher than mayor of a corrupt northeastern liberal town? Why even pretend to have a conservative party then?
Have you ever heard of fighting on principle? Do you have any concept whatsoever of drawing the line they dare not cross? Or of defending life, liberty and country for ourselves and our posterity?
Thought not.
See tag line.
224 posted on 02/10/2007 12:24:15 AM CST by Jim Robinson ("Electable" gave us Ford, Dole, Arnie. Voting for the "unelectable" right-wing kook gave us Ronnie.)
Pinging JimRob, you old "looney toon".
(And Rudy is still a liberal)
An "ignore" feature would be nice though.
Nah. I get a few paragraphs into leftist propaganda and then put it down. There's just nothing edifying in it. It's got the intellectual caloric value of cotton candy.
Watch out Corin. This stuff is gonna rot your teeth.
I do, therefore Giuliani does not warrant my respect.
No, that's what's nice about being a "convenient" or "Cafeteria" conservative, you can speak out of both sides of your mouth. OK, so most of us call that intellectual dishonesty, but what do they care, their guy "can win", but then what kind of win is it for a conservative when their guy is a liberal.
"the looneytoons on Free Republic" Peach
"National Review? Reads like USA Today."
"Good. Then it should be simple enough for even you to understand." Corin Stormhands
"They will call you everyname in the book." areafiftyone
At least I still have all of mine.
Treason...lock em up.
Rudy is a fiscal and law and order conservative and many people think that what he did in NYC with regard to fiscal conservatism was one of the greatest governmental, fiscal and urban achievements of the 20th century.
You have no idea how ignorant you sound when you try to paint him as a liberal.
Do you have a point or are you just practicing your cut and paste skills?
I can think for myself. As I recall, Jim was the person who called Bush a cokehead.
I'm just pointing out that on almost all these threads where Rudi-bots are complaining of being maligned by conservatives, they are usually arguing like liberals.
("You're stupid.)
And what kind of name is Corin Stormhands anyway?
How stupid is that?
When you get past a third grade reading level, you'll probably figure it out all on your own.
Co-authored by an Associate editor at the Atlantic Monthly. Now thre's an authority on conservatism.
Don't like that one then check out this one by conservative FrontPage magazine, which says the same thing.
Or check out Michael Reagan, which says the same things.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26604
Well, I guess you told me, though I don't know anyone who read Tolkien past, gee I dunno, their sophomore year.
So let's make nice. What do you think of `Charlotte's Webb'? Alien Ant Farm--they really rock, don't they?
"Now there's an authority on conservatism."
Also New Republic. And the other one writes for MSN Slate.
Groovy....
Really? You need to get out more.
(y'all s'cuse the ping to a Rudy thread, but I just thought you'd have to see this)
Every article is a rehash of a basic theme, Rudy cleaned up the streets of NYC, cut a few taxes and generally appeared to be somewhat to the right of the typical Marxist city governance. It does not make him a conservative.
There is no such thing as "respect" conservatism, just like we all found out there is no such thing as "compassionate" conservatism. If it needs a modifier, it aint conservatism.
Absolutely 100% ignorant drivel.
Let's try to stay on topic here, Corin.
Rudy supports--or to give him the benefit of the doubt-- does not oppose: "restrictions" on the 2nd Amendment, abortion or amnesty for illegal alien invaders.
So tell me Mr. Stormhands: how can one advance those issues and still remain a conservative?
You can open your bluebook now. Try to avoid invective, please.
You brought up the issue of the screen name.
Have you read the article?
Certain principles and core values are what keeps me a registered Republican despite what I've seen happen to this country over the past 18 years or so (10 of which has been under Republican leadership). I still believe to the death in the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights therein), state's rights, abolishing gun control, abortion reform, the protection of marriage, closed borders, strong but smart national DEFENSE, property rights, personal soverignty, civil liberty, going above and beyond for our military, and most of all small government. And when a candidate, even if he is more likely to win, violates more of those principles than he enforces, I won't vote for him or her. Period. I voted for Bush II twice, and got burned for it because I voted with the party and not principles (even though he seemed like a good candidate in 2000). But I voted for Rick Santorum in 2006, even though he had basically no shot at winning. And I still feel good about that vote because Santorum was a great Senator and a true conservative. Point is, I refuse to vote for Rudy based on one week of PR in New York 6 years ago or because he has a better chance to beat Hitlery. I wouldn't be against adding him as a VP as long as we had a good candidate to lead the ticket.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.