Posted on 02/17/2007 10:20:59 AM PST by George W. Bush
February 15, 2007, 6:00 a.m.
Giuliani’s Electoral Downside
The social issues aren’t just a primary problem.
By Ramesh Ponnuru
Rudy Giuliani doesn’t seem to have any tepid supporters on the Right. His fans are dogged in explaining his virtues to their skeptical peers. Steven Malanga recently wrote an essay for the City Journal’s website making the case for Giuliani as a conservative exemplar. He runs through an impressive list of the mayor’s conservative accomplishments. He adds this closing thought: “And if social and religious conservatives fret about Giuliani’s more liberal social views, nevertheless, in the general election such views might make this experience-tested conservative even more electable.”
At one point, the thought behind Malanga’s comment was the conventional wisdom. Socially-conservative views, notably opposition to abortion, were required to get the Republican nomination in presidential and many other races, but hurt the candidate in the general election.
The generalization never had much evidence to support it. It was true that opposition to abortion bought candidates worse news coverage, and true as well that some measures of public opinion found the public to support legal abortion. But other measures of public opinion, at least as good, found the public to be mildly pro-life. Among voters who considered abortion a top issue, meanwhile, pro-lifers clearly predominated.
In recent years, the conventional wisdom has changed. In the 2004 election, it was widely recognized that abortion was a bigger political problem for pro-choice Democrats than pro-life Republicans. John Kerry agonized over the issue; at one point his campaign disinvited Kate Michelman, who had long headed the abortion lobby NARAL, from a rally. The crucial swing voters in that election were not the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” people who are disproportionately found among the college-educated. Rather, they were social conservatives, often Catholics, who were receptive to Democratic appeals on economic issues. Those voters were the great prize the campaigns sought in Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Iowa.
How will those voters react if the Republicans nominate Rudolph Giuliani for president?
Some of them — especially the ones who had overcome ancestral Democratic loyalties because of the social issues — would probably go back to voting on economic issues, and vote for, say, Hillary Clinton.
Of course, it is possible that Giuliani would more than make up for these losses by bringing in other voters. Maybe the map of the 2008 election would look different from that of the Bush elections, with such states as California and New Jersey in play for the Republicans for the first time in 20 years. So many of Giuliani’s supporters dream. Polls taken right now find him to be the Republicans’ strongest candidate. A USA Today/Gallup poll has him beating Sen. Clinton by two points, while she beats McCain by three. (The Quinnipiac poll recently found similar results in Florida.)
But these polls are not terribly good at predicting election results. In Sept. 1999, a Washington Post/ABC poll found Gov. George W. Bush with a 19-point lead over Vice President Al Gore. Fourteen months later, Gore won more votes than Bush. One thing polls can’t capture is how the dynamics of a campaign change public opinion.
Social and national-security issues have tended to help Republican campaigns in recent years, and economic ones to help Democratic ones. The mix of advantages will look different in a race that pits Giuliani against any conceivable Democrat. On some social issues — crime, welfare, and affirmative action, for example — Giuliani takes the popular position; but these issues have declined in political importance. He will, however, be unable to take advantage of other social issues that have helped Republicans and increased in importance. National security, notwithstanding Giuliani’s reputation, is at least as likely to be a drag on the Republican ticket as an aid to it. (I’m less persuaded than Giuliani’s fans that his reputation for toughness, competence, and taking Islamist terrorism seriously will help him against the Democrats as much as they think it will, but that’s another piece.) And on issues such as health care and trade, he will have the same uphill climb that other Republicans do.
Giuliani, like Obama, is an exciting candidate. The safe bet, however, is that even with superstar nominees each party is going to go into 2008 with a floor around 46 percent and a ceiling around 54 percent. For either party to go into such a race by throwing away one of its advantages (and betting on stardom) would be risky.
None of this is to say that Giuliani is unelectable. Perhaps he would be the Republican party’s strongest nominee. But if so, it won’t be because he’s a social liberal.
— Ramesh Ponnuru is an NR senior editor and author of The Party of Death.
Philip Klein makes several arguments in response. The first is that Giuliani supposedly puts California, New Jersey, and other states in play. So there’s an upside risk, as I noted. But is that the way to bet? Is it really consistent with his holding a two-point national lead this month?Yes, Giuliani has an eight-point lead over Clinton in one poll in New Jersey. Tom Kean had a seven-point lead over Bob Menendez in January 2006. We have been told repeatedly that New Jersey was being put in play: by Bob Franks’s social liberalism in 2000, by Doug Forrester’s social liberalism in 2002, by 9/11 in 2004. It has never panned out for Republicans.
(((STOP GIULIANI 2008 PRIMARY PING!)))
"Some of them — especially the ones who had overcome ancestral Democratic loyalties because of the social issues — would probably go back to voting on economic issues, and vote for, say, Hillary Clinton.
Sure, sure, the evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics would think Hillary is the bee's knees.
All the turkeys will vote for Thanksgiving, too.
I'm so pleased to read that Ronald Reagan's son thinks Rudy would make a terrific President.
So does ultra social conservative Pat Robertson.
And Rep. Session (98% lifetime conservative rating) has endorsed Rudy, along with several others.
Common sense Republicans know there are many kinds of conservatives, not just social conservatives.
Great read. Good to see that someone is in touch with reality.
If Rudy would have just moderated his positions on guns, abortion, and gays over the last severals years, he would probably be a shoe-in for President by now. As is, he is going to have a difficult time in both the general election and the primaries.
Newt thinks Rudy would make a great president as well. He stopped just short of endorsing Rudy because he (Newt) is thinking of joining the race in October.
Of course, given Newt's unfavorable ratings among Republicans (60%), it's likely he's just playing a little ego game to keep his name in the ring.
Yes, there are "many kinds of conservatives." And Giuliani's liberalism violates the principles of most all of them.
Indeed, in one recent poll, majorities of Republicans who were informed of Giuliani’s views on social issues said that they were either minor issues or no issues at all; only 16% said that they wouldn't vote for him after being informed of these views.
In the online GOP Bloggers poll, Giuliani is consistently one of the few candidates to end up with a net positive acceptability rating. These internet denizens are well-informed, and overwhelmingly self-describe as conservative (78% self-describe as 7 or higher on a 10-scale of conservatism). If these people can support Rudy, anyone can.
Human Events, Is Giuliani the Republican Peyton Manning,
2/6/07
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1780060/posts
The rebirth of New York City, the most visible urban achievement in the 20th century is the work of the person now dubbed America’s mayor. For the millions of Americans who live in New York and the millions more who work or whose livelihood has been affected by its revival the contrast between the pre and post Giuliani years could not be more striking.
His defense of Israel and intolerance for Arab and U.N. sponsored anti-Semitism is legendary.
He figuratively walked into the lion's den of a crime ridden, high tax, and decaying city and carried out a conservative agenda of tax cuts, crime reduction and, in the case of the Brooklyn Museum, defense of religion in the public square. On this count Giuliani seems to be the winner in the public character category for his extraordinary vision and leadership.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1780064/posts
Ronald Reagan appointed Rudy as his #3 man at the Department of Justice.
Rudy was delighted to receive the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award.
At the Reagan Library Gift Shop, all but 3 of the books sold under the "Ronald Reagan Book" section are about Reagan himself or presidential modes of transportation.
Rudy Giuliani's book Leadership is one of those 3 books.
The other 2 are written by Reagan's son and McCaslin.
As George Will said on “This Week,” “His eight years as mayor of New York were the most successful episode of conservative governance in this country in the last 50 years, on welfare and crime particularly." Giuliani, more than any other candidate (Romney comes the closest) has the record of taking on major institutions and reforming them. Think about tourist magnet that is New York now. When Rudy Giuliani took office, 59% of New Yorkers said they would leave the city the next day if they could. Under Rudy Giuliani’s leadership as Mayor of the nation’s largest city, murders were cut from 1,946 in 1993 to 649 in 2001, while overall crime – including rapes, assaults, burglary and auto-thefts – fell by an average of 57%. Not only did he fight crime in Gotham like Batman, despite being constantly vilified by the New York Times, he took head on the multiculturalism and victimization perpetuated by Al Sharpton and his cohort of race baiters. He ended New York’s set-aside program for minority contractors and rejected the idea of lowering standards for minorities. As far as the economy goes, Rudy reduced or eliminated 23 city taxes. He faced a $2.3 billion budget deficit but cut spending instead hiking taxes.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/dmeaton/2007/feb/04/achieving_socially_conservative_ideals_through_liberal_means_making_the_case_for_rudy
"Ultra social conservative"?
I have to admit that I've never seen anyone other than a leftist characterize Robertson in that manner.
Sam Brownback would support Rudy as presidential nominee, but thinks that he (Brownback) will enter race.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1752817/posts
(Brownback did ultimately enter the race)
Rudy defended Sen. George Allen against racism charges.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1709893/posts
Rudy stumped for Rep. Santorum
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/19/115741.shtml?s=ic
Rather than cast aspersions on Peach, would it not be fair to characterise Pat Robertson as a social conservative, and then consider his views in that context?
Ivan
An excellent article about Rudy’s fiscal and law and order conservatism. The article makes the case that Rudy is one of the best fiscal conservatives the party has ever had.
To those of us who observed Giuliani from the beginning, it was astonishing how fully he followed through on his conservative principles once elected, no matter how much he upset elite opinion, no matter how often radical advocates took to the streets in protest, no matter how many veiled (and not so veiled) threats that incendiary figures like Al Sharpton made against him, and no matter how often the New York Times fulminated against his policies.
In particular, offended by the notion that people should be treated differently and demand privileges based on the color of their skin, Giuliani was fearless in confronting racial extortionists like Sharpton. Early in his tenure, he startled the city when he refused to meet with Sharpton and other black activists after a confrontation between police and black Muslims at a Harlem mosque.
And though activists claimed that Giuliani inflamed racial tensions with such actions, there were no incidents during his tenure comparable with the disgraceful Crown Heights riot under Dinkins, in which the police let blacks terrorize Orthodox Jews for several days in a Brooklyn neighborhood.
Giuliani decided to launch a welfare revolution, moving recipients from the dole to a job. Mindful that for years the city’s welfare bureaucracy had focused on signing up new recipients (Lindsay’s welfare chief had been nicknamed “Come And Get It” Ginsberg), the Giuliani administration first set out to recertify everyone in the city’s own home-relief program to eliminate fraud. In less than a year, the rolls of the program (for able-bodied adults not eligible for federal welfare programs) declined by 20 percent, as the city discovered tens of thousands of recipients who were actually employed, living outside the city, or providing false Social Security numbers.
Giuliani then instituted a work requirement for the remaining home-relief recipients, mostly men, obliging them to earn their checks by cleaning city parks and streets or doing clerical work in municipal offices for 20 hours a week. Welfare advocates vigorously objected, and one advocate pronounced the workfare program “slavery.” The New York Times editorialized that most people on home relief were incapable of work.
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.
Giuliani’s first budget, submitted just weeks after he took office, stunned the city’s political establishment by its fiscal conservatism. To demonstrate his disdain for the reigning orthodoxy, when the New York Times editorial board urged him to solve the budget crisis with tax and fee increases that a Dinkins-era special commission had recommended, Giuliani unceremoniously dumped a copy of the commission’s report into the garbage and derided it as “old thinking.” It was a pointed declaration that a very different set of ideas would guide his administration.
After years of tax hikes under Dinkins, Giuliani proposed making up the city’s still-huge budget deficit entirely through spending cuts and savings. Even more audaciously, he proposed a modest tax cut to signal the business community that New York was open for business, promising more tax cuts later. “I felt it was really important the first year I was mayor to cut a tax,” Giuliani later explained. “Nobody ever cut a tax before in New York City, and that was one of the reasons I wanted to set a new precedent.”
To balance the city’s budget early in his tenure, when tax revenues stagnated amid a struggling economy, the mayor played hardball, winning concessions from city workers that other mayors had failed to get. The city’s police unions had used their power in Albany to resist efforts by ex-mayors Koch and Dinkins to merge the city’s housing police and transit police into the NYPD. Giuliani strong-armed Albany leaders into agreeing to the merger, saving the city hundreds of millions in administrative costs and making the department a better crime-fighting unit, by threatening to fire every housing and transit officer and rehire each as a city cop if legislative leaders did not go along. Similarly, though the city’s garbagemen, many of whom worked only half days because their department was so overstaffed, had rebuffed the Dinkins administration’s push for productivity savings, Giuliani won $300 million in savings from them by threatening to contract out trash collection to private companies. Ultimately, with such deals, Giuliani reduced city-funded spending by 1.6 percent his first year in office, the largest overall reduction in city spending since the Depression.
Although Giuliani was no tax or economic expert when he took office, he became a tax-cut true believer when he saw how the city’s economy and targeted industries perked up at his first reductions. One of his initial budgetary moves was to cut the city’s hotel tax, which during the Dinkins administration had been the highest of any major world city. When tourism rebounded, Giuliani pointed out that the city was collecting more in taxes from a lower rate. “No one ever considered tax reductions a reasonable option,” Giuliani explained. But, he added in a speech at the Ronald Reagan Library, “targeted tax reductions spur growth. That’s why we have made obtaining targeted tax reductions a priority of every budget.” In his eight years in office, Giuliani reduced or eliminated 23 taxes, including the sales tax on some clothing purchases, the tax on commercial rents everywhere outside of Manhattan’s major business districts, and various taxes on small businesses and self-employed New Yorkers.
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.
Giuliani understood that he needed not only to keep city government operating but to inspire and console as well. Within a few hours, he had reestablished New York’s government in temporary headquarters, where he led the first post-9/11 meeting with his commissioners and with a host of other New York elected officials on hand to observe, prompting even one of his harshest critics, liberal Manhattan congressman Jerrold Nadler, to marvel at the “efficiency of the meeting.” Within hours, the city launched a massive search and recovery operation. Some half a dozen times that day Giuliani went on TV, reassuring the city and then the nation with his calm, frank demeanor and his plainspoken talk. As the nation struggled to understand what had happened and President Bush made his way back to Washington, Giuliani emerged as the one public official in America who seemed to be in command on 9/11. He became, as Newsweek later called him, “our Winston Churchill.”
In the weeks following the attacks, Giuliani became both the cheerleader of New York’s efforts to pick itself up and the voice of moral outrage about the attacks. Giuliani exhorted private institutions within the city—the stock exchanges, the Broadway theaters—to resume operations and urged the rest of America and the world to come visit the city. Not waiting for federal aid, the city rapidly began a cleanup of the World Trade Center site, which proceeded ahead of schedule, and of the devastated neighborhood around the site, which reopened block by block in the weeks after the attacks. Meanwhile, the mayor led visiting heads of state on tours of the devastation, because, he said, “You can’t come here and be neutral.” He addressed the United Nations on the new war against terrorism, warning the delegates: “You’re either with civilization or with terrorists.” When a Saudi prince donated millions to relief efforts but later suggested that United States policy in the Middle East may have been partially responsible for the attacks, Giuliani returned the money, observing that there was “no moral equivalent” for the unprecedented terrorist attack. He attended dozens of funerals of emergency workers killed in the towers’ collapse, leading the city not just in remembrance but in catharsis.
As “America’s mayor,” a sobriquet he earned after 9/11, Giuliani has a unique profile as a presidential candidate. To engineer the city’s turnaround, he had to take on a government whose budget and workforce were larger than all but five or six states. (Indeed, his budget his first year as mayor was about ten times the size of the one that Bill Clinton managed in his last year as governor of Arkansas.) For more than a decade, the city has been among the biggest U.S. tourist destinations, and tens of millions of Americans have seen firsthand the dramatic changes he wrought in Gotham.
Moreover, as an expert on policing and America’s key leader on 9/11, Giuliani is an authority on today’s crucial foreign policy issue, the war on terror. In fact, as a federal prosecutor in New York, he investigated and prosecuted major terrorist cases. As mayor, he took the high moral ground in the terrorism debate in 1995, when he had an uninvited Yasser Arafat expelled from city-sponsored celebrations during the United Nations’ 50th anniversary because, in Giuliani’s eyes, Arafat was a terrorist, not a world leader. “When we’re having a party and a celebration, I would rather not have someone who has been implicated in the murders of Americans there, if I have the discretion not to have him there,” Giuliani said at the time.
These are impressive conservative credentials. And if social and religious conservatives fret about Giuliani’s more liberal social views, nevertheless, in the general election such views might make this experience-tested conservative even more electable.
Research for this article was supported by the Brunie Fund for New York Journalism.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26604
A legitimate consideration of anyone's views requires intellectual honesty on both sides. Unfortunately that would seem to be impossible when one party begins the conversation with a variation on the "when did you stop beating your wife" theme.
Republican primary voters should rally around the GOP field's most accomplished supply-sider, the all-but-announced Rudolph W. Giuliani. Having sliced taxes and slashed Gotham's government, New York's former mayor is the leading fiscal conservative among 2008's GOP presidential contenders.
Before Giuliani's January 1, 1994 inauguration, New York's economy was on a stretcher. Amid soaring unemployment, 235 jobs vanished daily. Financier Felix Rohatyn complained: "Virtually all human activities are taxed to the hilt." Punitive taxes helped fuel a $2.3 billion deficit.
Mayor-elect Giuliani sounded Reaganesque when he announced he would "reduce the size and cost of city government" to balance the budget. In his first State of the City address, he said: "We're going to cut taxes to attract jobs so our people can work."
Rudy spent 8 years keeping those promises.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782806/posts
What good is it to have a well heeled Sodom and Gomorrah society via tax cuts? The LEFT will be all the more emboldened with their depravity. More kids, that are allowed to be born ... (not aborted) will become LIBERALS with money from tax cuts. Do you really believe that LIBERALS with money is HEALTHY? Social LIBERALS with money are dangerous.
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.