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.
You didn't ask me but I'll answer anyway. For those who have complained all these years about pro abort politicians not being slapped down by the Church, a vote for Rudy Giuliani is the penultimate dispaly of hypocrisy.
How does Rudy's position on national security differ from McCain, Romney, Hunter, etc.?
Much?
His response on partial birth abortion was laughable on it's face and the essence of political bs. Rudy is a very smart guy and knows that all abortion legislation has an exception for the Mothers life. His answer to that question was the nadir of the night.
My point is, that the law should have been enforced all along. It's not really a great achievement; it merely looks good in contrast with the atrocity that was NYC before he came. I used to admire him for his work against organized crime, until I read that most of his politics was sheer liberalism.
As for standing behind law enforcement, it would be interesting to hear what he says about the Border Patrol agents who were convicted as "violent criminals" on the testimony of an organized crime figure (drug smuggler) who was given immunity by the Bush Justice Dept.
It would also be interesting to hear him take a stand on Sandy Burglar and the other Clinton mob. Would he have sat by and let Burglar, who is more dangerous than a whole slew of mafiosi, walk, as Bush did? I bet he would, once in office.
And I repeat: How can he be " anti-crime" and interested in safeguarding citizens' lives etc., when he weasels about murder of nearly-born human beings (aka PBA)?
It's really too bad he didn't run against Hitlery for NY Senate. He would probably have lost, so we wouldn't have to listen to this "only he can beat Hillary" stuff.
Another question, if I might..assume that he announces, before the convention, that he has asked, a prominent social conservative..say, Newt, or Brownback, to run with him as VP, and the person has accepted..would that give his candidacy more standing with you?
Many, if not all, have forgotten, or blotted from their memory, what NYC was like before Rudy, under Dinkins..we had a three day pogrom in Brooklyn..Dinkins ordered the police to sit on their hands while the militant blacks rioted and attacked the Hasidic Jews. You can't believe what it was like to be walking on Madison Ave and 59th stree in the middle of the day, and see a homeless lady defecating in the street.
"He [Rudy] also brought in the crime fighters from Boston, a revolutionary move that has been spreading all over the country."
Who are these "crime fighters?" Boston is hideously corrupt. Read Howie Carr's book "The Brothers Bulger." The Boston FBI was rotten, and basically collaborated with and protected Whitey Bulger, who murdered or ratted out the Italian mob, leaving Whitey in control of all the rackets.
Some of the NYPD brass were recruited by other big cities who wanted to do what was done for NYC under Giuliani. One of them, Ed Norris, became Police Chief in Baltimore, MD and was convicted of embezzlement there. He sounded really good until he was caught, and many conservatives thought he was great. You can't go on image or rhetoric when judging people in govt.
It might.
I was in NYC in July 2001, competing in the National Veterans Wheelchair Games. It was a great experience, and the folks were very kind.
I give credit to Rudy for making the City a nice place.
another point that can't be ignored..the question of electability. Rudy as nominee puts a half dozen or more BLUE states ( NY, NJ, CT, PA, heck , even California) in play..Hillary can't afford to lose ONE of them...at the best, for her, she'll have to spend big $$$ and much time in them..
Rudy was NOT too sick last year nor does our economy need most of the illegals, many of whom are violent and gang members. In New York the Russian Mafia has established itself quite well.
He could do us a great favour by defeating Hillary in the primaries.
Then, if the Republicans nominate another RINO, it wouldn't make much of a difference who won the general election.
Rudy might put a number of RED states in jeopardy because of his liberalism. When the Republican Party has no vision, as in 2006, people stay away. Bush's strong stand on the war did not help, and Rudy's won't either. When the party stands on conservative principles, as it did in 1994 with the Contract With America, people flock to its standard. Remember that 1994 was a big defeat for your nemesis, HILLARY, all you Rudy fans.
I love Newt but can you see Dem ads again horribly smearing the candidate. He might win some Southern votes for Rudy. That would be good; Santorum, Hunter might get some voters too. Who knows?
OK, I'll sit back and watch what happens for awhile.
That ties it up neatly and completely.
Thank you for elaborating. I agree with you on many points. I think I've become more open to Rudy's candidacy at this point than you have because I believe the national security piece takes a moxie that Duncan Hunter doesn't have.
As I'm sure you know, given your sn, leadership takes more than being "right" on the issues. Those intangibles are essential. To be a war-time leader requires a brash and bold competence, the aura of a firewalker, along with the intellect of a historian. Someone who is merely "good" on the issues, but not possessing the intangibles, will come off as just another wonk---not a Commander in Chief.
I still mulling it, and I don't know if Rudy is right for the country. Time will tell more. But I do know, more than anyone else on the Republican horizon, he has inspired and he has led. And he seems beholden to very few, including the backroom boyz of the Republican party.
Actually I think that Mr. Giuliani is the least likely prominent Republican to beat Mrs. Clinton. I don't think he can even take her in NY. The Clintons have become for NY what the Kennedys are for MA.
I happen to agree with you. The other issues are important, but they are---so to speak---"lesser included questions." Meaning: without national security, we can't even get to those other points.
As a nation, I want us to hire someone who can be a strong Commander in Chief and take care of national security business in a way that I have confidence in. Then you and I can go about our business, including advocating for various other issues we want change on in our society.
I can march for life, but I can't be Commander in Chief. I'll do my part and I want the Leader of the Free World to do his.
Giuliani is a law-and-order Liberal.
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.