Posted on 04/22/2007 2:04:18 PM PDT by M203M4
This is addressed to conservatives - if, in the last few months, you have used the phrase "because he is the only one who can win against Hillary" (some "victory"...), or some variation, don't bother reading this, it will not do you any good. You and your ilk, by helping engineer a putrid path of least resistance for the lumbering political bureaucracy to follow, are responsible for the leftward drift of the American conservatism movement, and will be as long as it is aligned with the Republican party. Go advertise the latest poll.
Forward: (tone)
There is a whiff of schism on Free Republic regarding the 2008 presidential primaries. Social (Burkean) conservatives especially are (rightfully!) of the mind that Rudy Giuliani, the current clear leader in a crowded field, does not represent our side on many core issues - abortion, gay marriage, and illegal immigration in particular.
His fiscally conservative credentials are not stellar either (enviro-syndrome anyone?), but, unlike his social views, they are adequate. On matters of (non-economic) liberty, he is harder to read, but potentially disastrous; from his gun-control lunacy (and knife-control lunacy), to less important but equally revealing matters such as banning the playing of road hockey on city streets, Rudy could well turn out be a police-statist more than willing to trade liberty for order, much to the chagrin of some of his pushers of libertarian bent. I would ask such members of the conservative coalition to take another look before lining up to support him.
Rudy is hard to pin down ideologically precisely because he does not fit into either of the traditional camps composing modern conservatism (and make no mistake - BOTH camps are needed for conservatives, as modernly defined, to win any election) - he is neither Burkean (social conservative: camp A) nor right-libertarian (fiscal conservative + personal freedoms: camp B). Instead, he embraces a handful of tenets from both camps. From the Burkean side, Rudy clearly accepts the notion that the government should have a very free hand in establishing order, while from the libertarian side, he has accepted the free-market, free-enterprise notions of capitalism (potentially less so on property rights). A defender of morality? A defender of (non-economic) liberty? A resounding No! on both counts, at least explicitly.
Just pulling numbers out of the air, suppose this means that camp A is in 25% agreement with Rudy on the core issues, and camp B is in 55% agreement on the core issues (for comparison, Hillary might be 5% and 5%). For those of you primarily in camp B that support Rudy for holding up "most of your side of the issues", while expecting social conservatives to hold their nose more than twice as hard as you out of politically expediency and pull the lever for Rudy, I have a scenario for you to consider. It may be instructive to social conservatives as well.
End of forward.
Bizarro Rudy
Imagine a politician, say a governor or recent senator, 60ish, 4 kids, devout Baptist, married for 40 years, and running for president. His platform is 100% pro-life, 100% against homosexuality, wants a religiously active government, mostly against illegal immigration (moderate), and mostly for traditional roles for women. He is a "moderate" on gun control (supports AWB, supports CCW with registration, supports gun-free zones)
Suppose also, however, that he supports increasing taxes (making them more "progressive" - tax the rich more), providing universal medical coverage, expanding welfare, taxing and increasing the regulation of corporations, spending more on third-world aid, focusing national efforts on combating global warming, increasing estate taxes, and interested in the nationalization of some industries. He would talk about economic policy in terms of 'social justice' and 'fairness', while calling capitalism "corrupt, soulless, and amoral."
Call him what you want - religious leftist, Christian socialist. Would any conservatives in attendance push for such a candidate to be the nominee? Would any conservatives present vote for him in the general election if he were the Republican nominee against Hillary? Just pretend he is ahead in the polls right now.
Because that is, in some sense, analogous to what social conservatives are expected to do with respect to Rudy's candidacy. Neither candidate is good for conservatism.
“CONSERVATIVES DO NOT WIN ELECTIONS BY PANDERING TO THE SQUISHY MIDDLE. CONSERVATIVES WIN ELECTIONS BY CONVINCING THE SQUISHY MIDDLE WHY OUR IDEAS ARE BETTER.”
This bears repeating. Too bad it’s too long to be a tagline!
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. At least some of the Rudy supporters have something useful to contribute here. You aren’t one of them.
YES, voting for bizarro Rudy! Everyone has chimed in on his 9/11 performance (impressive), but I remember his pre 9/11 performance as mayor of NYC. After Dinkins, NYC was a place you wouldn’t want to be lost in without a gun. Rudy changed all that — transformed NYC into a livable and hospitable place, by hitting hard against criminals and social parasites. Yes, I will be voting for bizarro Rudy!
A vote for Rudy is a vote for death and against individual liberty.
Would a real Continental soldier have voted for a man who views liberty as submission to his authority?
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.