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.
GHWB Bush ran against Reagan in 1980, as the standard-bearer of the Eastern country-club establishment, who told us Reagan was too extreme to win. Perhaps Reagan's biggest mistake was choosing GHWB for VP, which set him up to be the leading R candidate in 1988, which led to the unravelling of the Reagan Revolution.
I never said the most conservative candidate wins. it's usually the opposite, because the country-club RINO set plays this "it's liberal Republicans like us or else those awful Democrats" game so successfully. Goldwater was the first to defy this with his "choice not an echo" plea. Eventually Reagan pushed that theme to a landslide victory (saving the world from communism in the process), yet everyone seems willing to give up on conservatism and turn the GOP over to the loser liberals again.
"The War against the Islamofascists is MUCH more important than any social issue"
So what, other than SAY he would, convinced you Rudy will fight the WOT? What are his qualifications? As far as I can see, he has none.
Stay at the back of the room with your arms folded. Rudy is a conservative and will win the nomination. If you disagree, you obviously want Hillary to be president.
You miss the whole point. As Reagan showed, it's not either/or. You can't have real conservatism if you cave in on great moral issues of the day. The man was the most successful Republican of modern times, and one of our greatest Presidents, and everyone has forgotten the lessons and the message.
I have no idea. I'm not proposing any such plan. I am however concerned over handing over the party to a GOP "perfect liberal".
Do you see a difference between (1) voting for the Hildabeast and (2) not voting for her opponent?
I realize you may think there is no difference in impact on the country in voting for the Hildabeast and in not voting for her opponent, but that is not my question.
I really want to know if the Party of One folks (see post #301) make a distinction between commission of a vote and omission of a vote?
So you say. And even before the primaries you're trying to sell the Republican Party on settling for a social issue lib. NO THANKS!
Rudy has all but said that in looking to appoint justices like Scalia and Roberts...he will not be advancing any liberal social agenda through the courts.
Just more words. You can't promise that any more than Rudy can. "Strict constructionist" is the phrase I keep hearing. Look up the definition and apply it to all of the previous appointments Rudy's made. NOT ONE!!
For Republicans, there really is no other choice.
Not a single vote in a single primary has been cast, and you say that?
Pure, unadulterated BS!
"For Republicans, there really is no other choice."
I appreciate your post and the logic that you use. However, it is way too early to conclude that there is "no other choice". Let's wait and see what happens between now and the next few months. I will be open to voting for Rudy in the general election, but you should consider being open to supporting someone else in the primaries who will be both a good social conservative and a good war president. Let's not decide now that Rudy is the only Republican that is capable of doing this.
My point is, those conservatives who believe you must always vote for the most conservative candidate usually don't win general elections. Reagan was the exception in 1980. Nixon in '68, Ford beat out Reagan in '76, GHWB and GWB were NOT the most conservative candidates out there at the time. So conservatives must have voted for the lesser of two evils, so to speak, in the general election. The same should hold true if Rudy is in the general election.
Well I just saw Tom Delay on Cavuto say he is NOT for Rudy at all because Rudy is pro-abortion and a host of other things. He likes Huckabee/Romney.
Rudy has NEVER been a conservative and will ensure Hillary being elected..
Many many conservatives would/will never vote for one so obviously a liberal.. NEVER..
I adore Rudy and have for over 15 or more years. He'd make a great, great president.
He's more socially liberal than I'd like, but we've had Republican presidents since 1980 with the exception of 8 years of Clinton and haven't gotten anywhere socially in terms of the issues, so I don't really see that it matters.
Well said and ditto!
You're talking about the single issue of national security, I take it?
You are not dumb.
Did anyone ever tell you how brilliant you are? Amazing! ;)
Thank you for clearing that up about DeLay. Also, I'm thinking old Tom isn't exactly in the best position to know the pulse of the Republican party right now.
Thank you for that historical perspective.
Save that argument for the general election then.
Wow, bad day?
Who said I thought you were in the "teach the GOP a lesson crowd"? I simply commented on your comment and applied it to the "teach a lesson" crowd, not you.
Lighten up, please. I'm agreeing with you, pal.
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.