Posted on 02/06/2007 10:43:27 AM PST by ElkGroveDan
“Murder and graffiti are two vastly different crimes,” Rudy Giuliani once said. “But they are part of the same continuum, and a climate that tolerates one is more likely to tolerate the other.”
Good point, Rudy.
Now, what about a climate — not to mention a Republican presidential candidate — that not only tolerates, but allows unelected judges to legalize the practice of delivering a child until only its head remains within its mothers womb so the child can be killed by sucking out its brains?
What about a climate where same-sex couples are given the same legal status as married couples, whether the resulting arrangements are candidly called “same-sex marriages,” or are semantically papered-over with terms such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships”?
Apply the Giuliani Continuum to fundamental issues such as marriage and the right to life, and where does it lead?
Not where conservatives want America to be.
Rudy Giuliani’s observation about the “continuum” running from graffiti to murder was quoted in a piece in the winter edition of City Journal by Steven Malanga. The title of Malanga’s piece neatly encapsulates his argument: “Yes, Rudy is a Conservative — and an electable one at that.”
I believe Malanga is wrong on both counts. Rudy is neither conservative, nor electable — at least, not as a Republican presidential candidate.
As Malanga seems to define it, a politician dedicated to good police work and free-market economics qualifies as a conservative. “Far from being a liberal,” Malanga writes of Giuliani, “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.”
But that’s not enough. While advocating law and order, self-reliance, and capitalism is laudable, it does not entitle a politician to a free pass for advocating other causes that are deeply destructive of American society.
While it is always wrong to take an innocent human life — whether on a New York sidewalk or in a mother’s womb — Giuliani is highly selective in applying this principle. In 1999, when he was pondering a run for the U.S. Senate, he was asked whether he supported banning partial-birth abortion. “No, I have not supported that,” he said, “and I don’t see my position on that changing.”
“I'm pro-gay rights,” he also said. Indeed, his position is so radical in this area that as New York City mayor he promoted a city ordinance that removed the distinctions in municipal law between married and unmarried couples, regardless of their gender.
“What it really is doing is preventing discrimination against people who have different sexual orientations, or make different preferences in which they want to lead their lives,” Giuliani said, explaining the ordinance to the New York Times. “Domestic partnerships not only affect gays and lesbians, but they also affect heterosexuals who choose to lead their lives in different ways.”
In other words, preserving a legal order that prefers traditional marriage and traditional families is “discrimination.”
Giuliani’s positions on abortion and marriage disqualify him as a conservative because they annihilate the link between the natural law and man-made laws. Indeed, they use man-made law to promote and protect acts that violate the natural law.
Given his argument that there is a “continuum” between graffiti and murder, you would think that Giuliani would understand the importance of the link between the natural law and the laws of New York City, let alone the laws of the United States. At the heart of Rudy’s “continuum” argument, is the realization that when society refuses to enforce a just law it teaches people to disrespect the moral principles underlying just laws.
The late Russell Kirk argued in The Conservative Mind that the first canon of conservatism is “[b]elief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. … True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.”
It is simply not justice to take the life of an unborn child. Nor is it justice to codify same-sex relationships so that, by design of the state itself, a child can be denied a mother or a father from birth, which is one thing legalized same-sex unions would do.
By advocating abortion on demand and same-sex unions, Rudy is doing something far more egregious than, say, defacing a New York subway train. He is defacing the institution that forms the foundation of human civilization.
That is not conservative.
Rudy will not win the Republican nomination because enough of the people who vote in Republican caucuses and primaries still respect life and marriage, and are not ready to give up on them — or on the Republican party as an agent for protecting them.
Rudy said last night on with Hannity that he supports a partial birth abortion ban.
No, but it's worth noting that NYC, if it were it's own state, would be equal in population size to Georgia and bigger then Massachusetts or Arizona.
Thirded.
The local conservative station allows him to call up and sound off for 15 - 20 minutes every other week or so. He's like the Joe Conason of the right, just not as nasty. Everything sucks, my view is not prevailing and because of that, the world is coming to an end, wah-wah-wah. Then he spends the rest of his air time trying to get subscriptions to NRO.
Nice try, paperboy.
Totally predictable coming from Jeffries.
Welcome to FR! Good post!
The so-called 'socons' are not afraid of Rudy. We are opposed to Rudy. Just like we're opposed to every other liberal. You want to find out how much of a base the 'socons' have? Keep foisting liberals like Rudy on them and then call them names when they refuse to accept as their candidate a man who is fundementally opposed to everything they believe. Then the 'socons' will leave the GOP and the Republican Party will fade into permanent insignificance.
But...all that said, I think this kind of infighting (not between you and I but rather between factions of the party) is really counterproductive at this point. I will do nothing to oppose Rudy or any other Republican candidate. I will support whoever I see as a reliable conservative and let the chips fall where they may. But I will never vote for a liberal for President, Republican or Democrat. I just really wish we could delay the start of this campaign...who wants a two year presidential campaign season?
Bottom line: If you want to vote for someone who can beat Hillary, then you better go with Rudy. Otherwise, you are throwing your vote away to a 3rd party candidate and giving Shillary a clean path to the presidency. Newt is un-electable in a general election, as is Romney and Brownback. And McCain is....well McCain is McCain. Nuff' said.
My how running for president makes liberal republicans suddenly see the light.
Uhh, actually, it's the 'socons' that would fade into permanent insignificance. And I say that as someone who's 100% pro-life and at least leans to the right on most other social issues.
I don't agree that Romney is unelectable, and actually, McCain has less problems then Rudy in a lot of ways.
I'm not supporting anybody for sure right now, I'm just sticking up for Rudy when people attack him for stupid reasons, as I'd defend anybody who's on my side more often then not.
If a Democrat is electable, Rudy is electable. In fact, Rudy should be running as Democrat.
That's your choice. The alternative is Hillary, who agrees with you probably 0% of the time. Make your choice.
I'm not voting for him for Christian reasons.....there are more important issues to me.
Don't kid yourself.
"If you want social engineering, join the party that favors it. It starts with "D" and ends with "rat"."
Uh...gay marriage is "social engineering," if anything ever was, and RINO Rudy can bring himself to oppose it unequivocally. And partial birth infanticide is murder. If this so-called hard-line "anti-crime" guy can't even speak unequivocally against that either, he's completely untrustworthy.
Few people here seem to remember that Richard Nixon campaigned for the nomination in 1968 sounding like Goldwater. It's what RINOs and unprincipled pragmatists like Nixon do to con the Republican base. Once in office, Nixon gave us the VietNam bailout, wage & price controls, and other horrors. That's what you get when you fall for RINO doubleltalk, like that Rudy and Mitt are handing us now.
We'll see. Better brace yourself.
I interpreted it to mean that if you tolerate deviant behavior, then you'll likely tolerate even more (increasingly) deviant behavior, but just how much you'll tolerate is unknown, until it's too late and things are out of hand.
I don't see Romney beating Hillary in a general election. And McCain is about as interesting as watching grass grow. He is the No-Doze candidate with some of his recent TV appearances. Geez....
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.