Is Rudy a Conservative?

Karnick on Culture ^ | jan 27, 2007 | S. T. Karnick

[S. T. Karnick]

In a very interesting City Journal article, Steven Malanga argues that "Yes, Rudy Guiliani Is a Conservative/And an electable one at that."

Malanga makes a strong case for Rudy as a Reagan-style conservative. After recounting Giuliani's record as mayor of New York City, in which, as Malanga establishes firmly, Rudy supported free markets and individual responsibility, as exemplified vividly in his tax cuts , welfare reform success, "zero tolerance" crimefighting, and firm rejection of racial politics.

As Malanga notes, Giuliani did this in what was one of the most leftist cities in the United States until he became mayor.

There's no question in my mind that Giuliani was a superb mayor and is a solid man of the right in most of his public stances. What many conservatives question, of course, is his record on social issues (such as support for legality of abortions, homosexual marriage, and gun control) and his occasionally unsteady personal life (such as his divorce from his somewhat eccentric wife).

None of this, Malanga argues, should preclude conservatives from supporting Giuliani for President:

[I]n a GOP presidential field in which cultural and religious conservatives may find something to object to in every candidate who could really get nominated (and, more important, elected), Giuliani may be the most conservative candidate on a wide range of issues. Far from being a liberal, he ran New York with a conservative’s priorities: government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets, he said, not to redistribute income, run a welfare state, or perform social engineering. The private economy, not government, creates opportunity, he argued; government should just deliver basic services well and then get out of the private sector’s way. He denied that cities and their citizens were victims of vast forces outside their control, and he urged New Yorkers to take personal responsibility for their lives. “Over the last century, millions of people from all over the world have come to New York City,” Giuliani once observed. “They didn’t come here to be taken care of and to be dependent on city government. They came here for the freedom to take care of themselves.” It was that spirit of opportunity and can-do-ism that Giuliani tried to re-instill in New York and that he himself exemplified not only in the hours and weeks after 9/11 but in his heroic and successful effort to bring a dying city back to life.

Malanga's argument against conservative rejection of Giuliani is twofold. Point one is that the social issues are not as important as the economic and national defense policies which are Giuliani's great strength. Point two is that Giuliani is conservative in the really important ways:

As part of Giuliani’s quintessentially conservative belief that dysfunctional behavior, not our economic system, lay at the heart of intergenerational poverty, he also spoke out against illegitimacy and the rise of fatherless families. A child born out of wedlock, he observed in one speech, was three times more likely to wind up on welfare than a child from a two-parent family. “Seventy percent of long-term prisoners and 75 percent of adolescents charged with murder grew up without fathers,” Giuliani told the city. He insisted that the city and the nation had to reestablish the “responsibility that accompanies bringing a child into the world,” and to that end he required deadbeat fathers either to find a private-sector job or to work in the city’s workfare program as a way of contributing to their child’s upbringing. But he added that changing society’s attitude toward marriage was more important than anything government could do: “[I]f you wanted a social program that would really save these kids, . . . I guess the social program would be called fatherhood.”

As a consequence of his rejection of the time-honored New York liberal belief in congenital black victimhood, Giuliani set out to change the city’s conversation about race. He objected to affirmative action, ending Gotham’s set-aside program for minority contractors, and he rejected the idea of lowering standards for minorities. Accordingly, he ended open enrollment at the City University of New York, a 1970s policy aimed at increasing the minority population at the nation’s third-largest public college system but one that also led to a steep decline in standards and in graduation rates.

This is a strong and important argument, and it will be good for the right to argue this one out.

Later in the article, Malanga makes the case that Giuliani is an important enough figure to merit presidential consideration:

The national, and even world, press marveled at the spectacular success of Giuliani’s policies. The combination of a safer city and a better budget environment ignited an economic boom unlike any other on record. Construction permits increased by more than 50 percent, to 70,000 a year under Giuliani, compared with just 46,000 in Dinkins’s last year. Meanwhile, as crime plunged, New Yorkers took to the newly safe streets to go out at night to shows and restaurants, and the number of tourists soared from 24 million in the early 1990s to 38 million in 2000, the year before the 9/11 attacks. Under Giuliani, the city gained some 430,000 new jobs to reach its all-time employment peak of 3.72 million jobs in 2000, while the unemployment rate plummeted from 10.3 to 5.1 percent. Personal income earned by New Yorkers, meanwhile, soared by $100 million, or 50 percent, while the percentage of their income that they paid in taxes declined from 8.8 to 7.3 percent. During Giuliani’s second term, for virtually the only time since World War II, the city’s economy consistently grew faster than the nation’s.

Today, Americans see Giuliani as presidential material because of his leadership in the wake of the terrorist attacks, but to those of us who watched him first manage America’s biggest city when it was crime-ridden, financially shaky, and plagued by doubts about its future as employers and educated and prosperous residents fled in droves, Giuliani’s leadership on 9/11 came as no surprise. What Americans saw after the attacks is a combination of attributes that Giuliani governed with all along: the tough-mindedness that had gotten him through earlier civic crises, a no-nonsense and efficient management style, and a clarity and directness of speech that made plain what he thought needed to be done and how he would do it.

Like great wartime leaders, Giuliani displayed unflinching courage on 9/11. A minute after the first plane struck, he rushed downtown, arriving at the World Trade Center just after the second plane hit the South Tower, when it became obvious to everyone that New York was under attack. Fearing that more strikes were on the way—and without access to City Hall, the police department, or the city’s command center because of damage from the attacks—Giuliani hurried to reestablish city government, narrowly escaping death himself as the towers came down next to a temporary command post he had set up in lower Manhattan. “There is no playbook for a mayor on how to organize city government when you are standing on a street covered by dust from the city’s worst calamity,” one of his deputy mayors, Anthony Coles, later observed.

This is all true, and I think that Malanga is right to conclude that Rudy Giuliani merits serious consideration as a presidential candidate.

In addition to that, I think that the discussion of Giuliani's qualifications for national leadership could be very salutary for the right. Those who define themselves as conservatives find it hard to support someone with Guiliiani's record on social issues.

As a liberal of the right, I too disagree with Guiliani's positions supporting abortion, gay marriage, and the like. However, I think that Guiliani would have to move a little to the right on these issues in order to secure the Republican nomination, and that as president he would not be any less supportive of the Right's social agenda than Ronald Reagan was as president.

Guiliani reminds me rather strongly of Reagan, in fact. Although Reagan talked the talk on social issues, he didn't really walk the walk, unless I wasn't looking when Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Casey voted to turn back Roe v. Wade in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. Similarly, Reagan had been divorced and had a rather less than perfectly salubrious family life. But on the big things Reagan was the best president of the past century.

If Rudy Guiliani could be half that good, that would make hiim a superior president indeed. His candidacy merits serious consideration.

From Karnick on Culture.

[x]

That's a good case. But if you'd asked Republicans or conservatives about Reagan in 1980 you wouldn't have heard the kind of misgivings you hear about Rudy today. Reagan had established himself as a social conservative, in spite of the divorce and California's abortion law. Rudy hasn't done that yet.

There's some difference in people's minds between one divorce and two, between knowing gay people and living with them. To some extent it's a generational thing: Reagan had the solidity and reliability of someone who'd been through the generation.

Republicans understood that Reagan wouldn't move left in any significant way, either socially or economically. It's harder to say that about Rudy now. Maybe knowing who he'd listen to and appoint as President would help conservatives to make up their mind definitively about him.

[Always Right]

Rudy is a tough sell to social conservatives as the Supreme Court balance is just one vote away from swinging right. Rudy is a good guy and very good on some issues, but he is no Reagan conservative and it is a lie to try to sell him as one.

[My GOP]

This is why you should vote for Rudy. Lets first address the social issues. Let's start with pro-homo. He's AGAINST gay marriage. Now as far as homos go, personally, I disagree with their life style but as long as they do what they do in the privacy of their own home I really don't care and nobody else should either, especially not the federal government. The POTUS doesn't have the power to stop people from being gay. And he surely shouldn't be interferring in people's private lives. So therefore voting on the basis of this issue doesn't make much sense.

As far as abortion goes, we have a pro-life President now but we are still having abortions. No president has the power to stop abortion. Rudy has already said he supports strict constructionist judges like John Roberts. He constantly praised the President for appointing Roberts and Alito. He said Roberts is his ideal justice. Assuming Rudy gets elected President and appoints Roberts-like justices then maybe Roe v. Wade will get overturned. But even if it does get overturned I hope you're not naive enough to think that would stop all abortions. The abortion issue would then revert back to the states and do you really think California would outlaw abortions? Being pragmatic in our thinking we all know we can't completely stop abortions. Therefore voting solely on this issue very unpragmatic. I hate abortions too but I realize that regardless of how many pro-life presidents we elect, its just not going to stop.

Rudy is great on all the other issues, the ones where the President actually has the power to make a real difference, like the WOT. He's fiscally responible(he turned a NYC's deficit into a surplus), a tax cutter(he cut over 20 taxes as Mayor), conservative on domestic policies(he dropped 600,000 people off welfare, cleaned up the rampant crime as Mayor and supports school choice), supports strict constructionist judges, and is 100% perfect when it comes to his stance on the WOT and all other foreign policy which by the way is 100 times more important than worrying about what some gays people are doing, gay people that doesn't affect your life at all!!!

With Rudy you are not getting a liberal, you are getting a man who is conservative on most issues, the issues where the president actually has major influence over and yes he is fairly liberal on a couple of social issues, issues that the president has very little influence over. Nowadays judges have the most influence on these issues and Rudy supports strict constructionist so that pretty well takes care of the social issues and will help us get these issues back to the states where they belong. So on the AVERAGE he is fairly conservative and not a liberal and more importantly conservative on the issues where the President can make a difference. And most importantly he will continue Bush's work on the WOT and give us a great foreign policy.

Finally, Rudy and McCain are, IMO, the only two Republicans that can win in 2008. So take your pick, Hillary, McCain, or Rudy. Sure, you can "choose" another Republican but he will lose to Hillary. Back to Rudy, If he's elected President and fights terrorist like he fought crime as Mayor can you imagine the results we will in the defining struggle of our generation, the fight against Islamic fascism. You know for a fact Hillary will surrender the terrorist and hand our foreign policy over to the UN and EU and poor Israel would be left out to dry. Rudy is extremely competetent and a great leader and there is nobody I want more as Commander in Chief. So you go ahead and worry about gays, people that don't affect your life at all. I'm going to worry about Islamic fascism, you know the people that want to kill us all, and vote for someone that will go after them.

Lets review history. World War II ended in 1945. SEVEN years later in 1952 the most popular general of the war, Dwight Eisenhower, won in a landslide despite far right extremist unpragmatic Republicans not supporting him in the primaries. History always repeats itself

[narses]

I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights, Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded. Source: CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999 http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Rudy_Giuliani_Abortion.htm

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES (November 14, 2006)

RUDY GIULIANI (R), FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: I'm pro- choice. I'm pro-gay rights.

KING: Giuliani supports a woman's right to an abortion, and back in 1999, he opposed a federal ban on late-term abortions.

GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.

KING: Immigration could be another presidential landmine. Back in 1996, Mayor Giuliani went to federal court to challenge new federal laws requiring the city to inform the federal government about illegal immigrants.

JEFFREY: He took the side of illegal immigrants in New York City against the Republican Congress.

KING: Giuliani opposes same-sex marriage but as mayor, he supported civil unions and extending health and other benefits to gay couples. He also supported the assault weapons ban and other gun control measures opposed by the National Rifle Association.

GIULIANI: I'm in favor of gun control. I'm pro-choice.

Republican Big-Wigs Support Pro-Abortion Event in NY

Pro-abortion Governor George Pataki and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who also supports unrestricted abortion, are co-chairs of the 2000 Choice Award Presentation to be held on May 30 at the St. Regis Hotel in New York City. The event is sponsored by the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, a group that is campaigning for the removal of the pro-life plank from the Republican National Platform.


http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200503010743.asp

[narses]

Abortion Fits GOP Philosophy, Says Giuliani

By Jeff McKay
CNS Correspondent
April 09, 2001

New York, N.Y. (CNSNews.com) - While the national Republican platform is decidedly pro-life and has been for the past two decades, the GOP mayor of the nation's largest city believes his party's philosophical underpinnings are more in tune with the pro-abortion point of view.

New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said favoring the availability of abortion is "more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party."

Giuliani made his eyebrow-raising remarks at an awards luncheon April 6 sponsored by the National Abortion Rights Action League in New York City, a leading abortion group.

[...Snip...]

Kelli Conlin, the executive director of the New York chapter of NARAL, applauded Giuliani's views. She called the mayor "a great advocate for us," and said it was "unfortunate the leadership of the GOP has moved into a direction where they want to implant government control on the lives of women and on reproductive freedom."

Although some of the state's top Republicans favor the availability of abortion - both Giuliani and Gov. George Pataki are supporters of abortion rights - their views on the issue are not shared by all in the New York GOP.

"Rudy Giuliani is not the poster child for the Republican Party. His values are completely out-of-step with the views of the GOP," said Lori Hougen, spokesperson for the New York chapter of the National Right to Life.

[My GOP]

As far as abortion goes, we have a pro-life President now but we are still having abortions. No president has the power to stop abortion. Rudy has already said he supports strict constructionist judges like John Roberts. He constantly praised the President for appointing Roberts and Alito. He said Roberts is his ideal justice. Assuming Rudy gets elected President and appoints Roberts-like justices then maybe Roe v. Wade will get overturned. But even if it does get overturned I hope you're not naive enough to think that would stop all abortions. The abortion issue would then revert back to the states and do you really think California would outlaw abortions? Being pragmatic in our thinking we all know we can't completely stop abortions. Therefore voting solely on this issue very unpragmatic. I hate abortions too but I realize that regardless of how many pro-life presidents we elect, its just not going to stop.

[narses]

And gun grabbers? That's OK? Oh yeah and the radical gay stuff, OK too? Dumping wife after wife, OK?

[My GOP]

"And gun grabbers? That's OK?"

No and I don't think he will try to "grab" any guns. Are the Democrats trying to do it now that they have regained Congress. NO!!! Gun control hasn't been an issue since 2000 when it cost Al Gore the election and nobody is going to try to make it an issue now. Everybody knows its a losing issue.

"Oh yeah and the radical gay stuff, OK too?"

Did you even read my original post the entire way through? Rudy is against gay marriage. Besides, its a state issue anyways. Secondly, nobody, including the President can stop people from being gay and the government shouldn't be involved in their private lives. Gays don't affect my life or yours. Stop worrying about things that don't affect your life!!!

"Dumping wife after wife, OK?"

What does this have to do about his ability to be President. It didn't stop him from being the greatest Mayor NYC has ever had. His divorce is between him, his wife, and God and NOBODY else. Judge not!!!

And if you didn't read my entire post, please go back and read it.

[narses]

Instead, maybe you might want to read the GOP platform. Or use common sense. Rudy backed down from Hillary once, he is now dithering. He is a CINO and a RINO. You can praise him all you want and that won't change a word he has said.

[narses]

Abortion Fits GOP Philosophy, Says Giuliani

By Jeff McKay
CNS Correspondent
April 09, 2001

New York, N.Y. (CNSNews.com) - While the national Republican platform is decidedly pro-life and has been for the past two decades, the GOP mayor of the nation's largest city believes his party's philosophical underpinnings are more in tune with the pro-abortion point of view.

New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said favoring the availability of abortion is "more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party."

Giuliani made his eyebrow-raising remarks at an awards luncheon April 6 sponsored by the National Abortion Rights Action League in New York City, a leading abortion group.

[...Snip...]

Kelli Conlin, the executive director of the New York chapter of NARAL, applauded Giuliani's views. She called the mayor "a great advocate for us," and said it was "unfortunate the leadership of the GOP has moved into a direction where they want to implant government control on the lives of women and on reproductive freedom."

Although some of the state's top Republicans favor the availability of abortion - both Giuliani and Gov. George Pataki are supporters of abortion rights - their views on the issue are not shared by all in the New York GOP.

"Rudy Giuliani is not the poster child for the Republican Party. His values are completely out-of-step with the views of the GOP," said Lori Hougen, spokesperson for the New York chapter of the National Right to Life.

[AnalogReigns]

Is Rudy a conservative?

Ummm, no.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

"Yes, Rudy Guiliani Is a Conservative".

---

Show me the beef!

[My GOP]

Rudy backed down from the Senate race because he had prostate cancer!! I know what the GOP platform says. Do you agree with it 100%? Republicans can and do have differences. To think 100% of Republicans are going to agree with the official GOP platform 100% of the time is ignorant and stupid. You can criticize him all you want and it want change the fact that my original post is correct and that you are ignorant, judgemental, and have no realization of today's realities. I do use common sense. I know Rudy is right on the most important issues that the President actually can affect and is the only Republican other than McCain that can win the general election in 2008.

[narses]

"Rudy Giuliani is not the poster child for the Republican Party. His values are completely out-of-step with the views of the GOP," said Lori Hougen, spokesperson for the New York chapter of the National Right to Life.

[penowa]

"Are the Democrats trying to do it now that they have regained Congress. NO!!!"

Either you aren't paying any attention to what the Democrats, not only in Congress, but also in most states where they have recently taken over the Legislatures, as well as the Democrat Mayors of America's big cities are up to, or you think that you are pulling something over on us. Which is it?????

[My GOP]

Do you really think I care what Lori Hougen, whoever that is, thinks? I hate to tell Lori this, but she's wasting her time trying to stop abortions. They will never stop no matter what she does or how hard she tries.

[narses]

~ Rudy supports big government Republicanism.
* Conservatives support limited government.

~ Rudy has supported gun control and an assault weapons ban.
* Conservatives oppose gun control and an assault weapons ban.

~ Rudy has supported abortion on demand and a ban on partial birth abortion.
* Conservatives oppose abortion on demand and support a ban on partial birth abortion.

~ Rudy has supported and even promoted special rights for homos.
* Conservatives oppose special rights for anyone.

~ Rudy supports liberal immigration reform, amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegals.
* Conservatives are opposed to liberal immigration reform, amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegals.

There is nothing conservative about Rudy Giuliani. Rudy`s major accomplishment upon leaving office as Mayor of NYCity was to reduce crime. The current liberal mayor of NYCity Mike Bloomberg has also reduced crime. Doesn't mean conservatives will vote for either Giuliani or Bloomberg to be POTUS. Only a moderate, centrist or liberal Republican could vote for Rudy. Unless you pull a "Vito Fossella", and sell out your conservative principles for the liberal bandwagon of Rudy Giuliani. Rudy`s given a lifetime of support to liberal policies and liberal causes, and that should be a turnoff to anyone who calls themselves a conservative.

[My GOP]

I haven't heard a thing from the Democrats in Congress about gun control. It certainly wasn't on their big first 100 hours to do list. As for the big city Democratic mayors, that's to be expected.

[narses]

He ran cause he was gonna lose! He is the wrong man for the job.