During RWB’s recent hibernation, there has been progress with regard to the 2008 presidential election, with various candidates throwing their hats into the ring. As absurd as it may seem for the contest to be starting so soon, there really isn’t much choice. The amount of money that needs to be raised to make someone a serious candidate dictates an early start — especially because anyone who waits to declare his/her candidacy risks seeing money that would have gone his/her way going to someone else instead. “Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are these: ‘It might have been.’” Doubly so when “it” is money. Anyhow, the choice of who will be president is one of enormous consequence, especially in times like these, so perhaps it is no bad thing for the competition to start early, if it weeds out the deeply flawed who might otherwise sneak through in a shorter race.

So, the leader on the Republican side, if you take the early polls seriously, is Rudy Giuliani. Despite a repetitive theme in the media about how his poll numbers would take a dive as heartland conservatives discover his liberal views on those “social issues,” his poll numbers to date have actually only gotten stronger. While RWB is holding off on any endorsement (I prefer to cultivate the “kingmaker” role in the final stages of an election), Giuliani is clearly the Republican generating the most excitement. Andrew McCarthy in National Review Online has endorsed him, crediting Rudy’s “unique combination of vision, guts, and perseverance.”

As someone who was a witness to the stunning way in which New York City was turned around between 1993 and 2001, all in the face of constant opposition from the likes of the New York Times, the ACLU, et al (and et Al Sharpton), I don’t hesitate in asserting that Giuliani is simply the smartest political leader I’ve ever seen, and one who can be absolutely counted on to get things done. On issues of foreign policy and war and peace, Giuliani gives one every reason to think that he would be both highly principled and highly effective. There is some cause for concern however as to what, exactly, he would get done in that area of “social issues.” And this is where the “told you so” part of the title of this post comes in.

Almost two years ago, in May of 2005, RWB speculated about how Giuliani might get around his history of supporting abortion rights:

However, what if Rudy, while not personally opposing a right to abortion, made it clear that his philosophy in nominating judges was the same as George W. Bush’s; namely that he favors originalists like Antonin Scalia?

This is exactly the tack that Giuliani is now taking, telling both Sean Hannity of Fox News and Larry King of CNN that he favors “strict constructionists,” and that he approves of the judges that President Bush has nominated to the Supreme Court. So, Rudy has shown that he understands the problem many social conservatives would have with his views on abortion in particular (he is personally against it but favors keeping it legal) and he is clear-thinking enough to understand that there is a distinction between what he personally thinks and what conclusions a Supreme Court Justice might properly come to in interpreting the constitution.

However, unless I’ve missed it — and I don’t think I have — Rudy hasn’t gone far enough. I believe that his current level of coyness on the issue will be insufficient to win the day when the votes finally start getting cast a year from now. He needs to say in much more explicit detail — if, that is, he believes it — that he thinks Roe v Wade was a bad decision, constitutionally speaking, and that it would not be a bad thing for it to be overturned and for the legal status of abortion to be returned to the states to decide for themselves. Why so, when even President Bush has not gone out of his way to directly criticize Roe v. Wade? Well, it was alright for George W. Bush not to vocally advocate for the overturning of Roe v. Wade during his campaigns, because everyone knew that he was pro-life. That, coupled with his expressed views about the kinds of judges he would nominate, told the whole story. Rudy is pro-choice; i.e. he favors legally available abortion. Therefore, his remarks about “strict constructionist” judges have to be expected to count for nothing if a President Giuliani, in office, is faced with the real possibility of swinging the court against abortion rights. As it stands, we have to think that he would prefer to keep the status quo. Anything else would be self-delusion on the part of a conservative, pro-life voter. If in fact Rudy feels otherwise, he needs to spell it out, and it needs to be believable. (It is intellectually consistent to favor the legal availability of abortion while believing that the U.S. constitution does not guarantee it as a right.)

Another issue that has the strong potential of causing unacceptable queasiness in the stomachs of primary voters is the issue of gun ownership by law abiding citizens. It’s no secret that New York City has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the nation. Legally owning a handgun is the next thing to impossible, and you can forget about legally carrying a concealed gun unless you’re someone like Robert De Niro or one of Rosie O’Donnell’s bodyguards. (On the other hand, for those willing to ignore laws, like, er, criminals, procuring guns has never proved too difficult.) Giuliani used gun laws aggressively in prosecuting crime, although it was just a small part of the overall “broken windows” strategy that ultimately worked so successfully. He was asked about his views on gun control at a recent press conference.

“I used gun control as mayor,” he said. But he added, “I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms.”

He said what he did as mayor to get guns off the streets would have no effect on hunting.

Nice to hear that Rudy understands the Second Amendment. However, his follow up remark about hunting undermines one’s confidence that he really does. The Second Amendment doesn’t say that “the right of the People to keep and bear arms for the purposes of hunting shall not be infringed.” It says that “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Using the old “hunting” dodge makes Rudy sound like John Kerry or Al Gore, and that’s not a good idea. If the only concern is allowing people to hunt, then you can progressively restrict and ban more and more weapons, making the case that they are not crucial to hunting — starting with all handguns. In the end, you can whittle the hunters down to the right to own one single-shot, bolt-action rifle. That’s all you really need, right? Give the critters a fair chance! By then, everyone will be so accustomed to having their rights restricted and taken away, that it will be as nothing to eliminate that final “right” as well.

As with the abortion issue, Rudy needs to elaborate and to be completely clear. He needs to explain how his responsiblities as mayor of one of the largest cities in the world — a city where crime was out of control when he took over — differed greatly from what his responsibilities as president of the United States would be. He needs to assert a belief — if he has it — in the law abiding individual’s right to keep and bear arms, under the U.S. constitution, for whatever purpose he or she chooses.

In thinking about things that should legitimately worry conservatives about Rudy, I’m reminded of fireworks, and the Fourth of July. One of the things that Rudy did in New York City was to ban the private use of fireworks, using as justification the many injuries (generally self-inflicted) that would occur from fireworks around the Fourth of July holiday. Now, this did not inspire me to march and protest for my right to toss M-80s at tourists on Fifth Avenue. In fact, New York City was pretty nightmarish around the Fourth of July, before Giuliani’s ban, and I’m altogether happy leaving the pyrotechnics to the good people of Macy’s to conduct in a civilized fashion. If I lived out on some rustic plain, I imagine I’d enjoy setting off my own explosions. In New York City, however, everybody is in eachother’s face to begin with, and it is incredibly obnoxious and inconsiderate to be blowing things up in such close quarters. So, Rudy banned them, and — like everything he did — he did it effectively and thoroughly, and things were quiet, and injuries from fireworks went way down, and everybody said “I guess he was right.” And it is just this that should scare people a bit. A President Giuliani cannot govern on the basis of “the ends justify the means;” e.g. that it’s OK to take away people’s rights if it causes a demonstrable decrease in injuries. Pragmatism of that nature can be taken too far, and become a kind of tyranny of its own. Rudy somehow will need to make clear that this is not the kind of president he would be, if he is to ultimately get those conservative primary voters.

It should be clear that I only take the time and trouble to wade through Rudy Giuliani’s more problematic aspects because I hold him in such high esteem. He is a mensch. He saved New York City at a time when most people laughed at the idea of even attempting to save it: it was “ungovernable,” and crime would inevitably increase every year — the only question was by how much. Rudy ignored the defeatism and refused to accept anything other than success. Murders came down from around 2,200 a year to around 600, and crime kept falling. Welfare rolls were halved. Times Square turned its lights on again. The porn pits and sleaze retreated under fire. Tourists, businesses and residents stopped fleeing and started coming back. New York went from being a prime example of why cities just couldn’t work anymore in the late 20th century to being, again, the capital of the world. Many people across the country weren’t too clear on what he was made of until September 11th, 2001. Even in New York City, some said after those events that they never knew this Rudy — where did this Rudy come from? This Rudy was likeable and admirable! For me and a lot of other New Yorkers who had supported him and grown to genuinely admire him, that kind of talk was baffling. Rudy stood up on September 11th just as I would have expected he would, had I ever dreamed of such circumstances.

The image of Rudy Giuliani standing up for America as a whole, as president, is therefore a deeply appealing one, in many ways. But the presidency is far too important to give anyone a pass on issues of great principle. Therefore, may the best man win.

...................
Share this!

Posts which might be related to this one based on a mysterious algorithm:

• Rudy and Robertson
• America’s Mayor
• Federalism’s in fashion