What Giuliani could mean for the GOP: A best case scenario, via The New Republic's Thomas B. Edsall:
What if we are witnessing not Rudy moving toward the rest of the Republican Party, but rather the Republican Party moving toward Rudy? What if the salience of a certain kind of social conservatism is now in decline among GOP voters and a new set of conservative principles are emerging to take its place? What if Giuilianism represents the future of the Republican Party?
That's a lot of "what ifs," to be sure. But Edsall argues:
It isn't just average voters who are driving this shift; many members of the GOP elite-whose overwhelming concern is cutting taxes, a Giuliani forte-would privately welcome the chance to downplay, if not discard, the party's rearguard war against the sexual and women's rights revolutions. Much of the Republican Party's consulting community and country club elite always viewed abortion and gay rights as distasteful but necessary tools to win elections, easily disposable once they no longer served their purpose.
Well, disposing of GOP gay-baiting would be nice, but the nominating convention and election are a long ways away and it's unclear whether Giuliani, authoritarian personality streak and all, will blow this chance to save the GOP from itself.
32 Comments for “New Republicanism”
posted by Lori Heine on
I wish it were that simple: that Rudy could just waltz in, win the nomination and the election and save the GOP from the American Taliban.
The problem is that it probably won’t be that simple. The Christianists have such a stranglehold on the Republican Party that it will probably take them losing — and big-time — in several successive elections before they wake up and smell the coffee about pandering to religious extremists.
Should Rudy win in ’08, I’m afraid all it will do is energize “the base” to mobilize for more civil war.
posted by Fitz on
Rockefeller Republicans like Rudy love to think of themselves as (somehow) the savior of the Republican party. Leftists and liberals love to cheer them on because social conservatism is seen by them as the greatest threat to their civilization (?American Taliban?)
The truth of the matter is that the Republicans are know were without their religious base. It took Jerry Fallwells moral majority to back Ronald Reagan and the defection of all those Reagan Democrats in the Midwest & Northeast (Catholics who were formally staunch Democrats) over the cultural issues: That made trhe republicans a winning coalition.
One needs look no further than the supermajorities available when protection of marriage amendments are put on the ballot to realize that the strength of the republicans lies in Christian America.
Any politician stupid enough to throw its foot soldiers and most enthusiastic voters over the side in exchange for the fawning of the liberal establishment is one dumb poll.
You watch and see what happens, wishful thinking kids.
posted by Lori Heine on
It could just be that many so-called “leftists and liberals” merely want a coherent discussion.
According to the Bible, everybody sins. So if we’re gonna talk sin, let’s just make sure we’re being inclusive about it.
Fitz betrays the typical prejudice about hetero Christians — that they all see “social issues” (like how other individuals live their private lives) as the most important consideration. Speaking as somebody who, like, actually knows a lot of real hetero Christians, I can state decisively that this is not the case.
Polls are showing, as well, that Christians are getting tired of the obsession over social issues and that they want to hear more about other things.
I’m not going to sit around and wring my hands over the supposedly-inevitable theocratization of this country. If, in anybody’s little fantasy play-world, that has to make me a “leftist” or a “liberal,” then so be it.
posted by Brian Miller on
Guiliani has already renounced his positions on gay issues and will likely renounce other “liberal” positions if it’s required in order to win nomination. Let’s please be careful not to mistake Guiliani/Clinton style principle-free, power-hungry spinelessness for “centrism” or “progressivism.”
As for the Republican Party, it’s effectively dead as an opposition party in the next election. It’s got no new ideas, only excuses for its failures in every level and area of government. It’s had control of all three branches of government for years, and all it has to show for it is more debt, more government employees, HUGE future deficits on new entitlements, and two failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
America is less safe than it was 5 years ago as a result, and their old policy of blaming the Democrats for everything has been rendered a hilarious joke.
That said, the Republicans should thank the gods of fortune that their primary opposition party at the moment is the Democrats — incompetence versus incompetence results in a deadlock that we’re likely to see persist for the next couple of elections.
Of course, I expect that eventually the American people will become tired of incompetence, excuses, and same-old career politicians like Guiliani and Hillary.
posted by Timothy on
“Guiliani has already renounced his positions on gay issues…”
I guess I missed that press conference. I do know that he said that New Hampshires Civil Unions “went too far” and that he had previously favored “…civil unions, domestic partnerships,…”. I don’t see that as “renouncing” anything.
posted by Brian Miller on
So Guiliani favors civil unions — except when he doesn’t favor them.
What is so objectionable about the NH ones? They go too far because they’re in NH — perhaps it would be more palatable in RI?
Ohhhhh. . . that’s it. He said they went too far in front of a CONSERVATIVE audience — whereas he’ll be all cheerful and cite his “liberal” record on civil unions in front of a LIBERAL audience. Now he has a quote he can use for EACH side of the issue — convincing each side that he’s on their side!
Yep, he’s definitely got everything the Republicans like on the honesty and clarity front.
posted by Pappy McFae on
It is too bad that I find the Republican Party so reprehensible. I don’t think there is anything wrong with fiscal conservatism. I have also been a fan of Ayn Rand’s writing for some time. Even though I know she wasn’t big on homosexuals (apparently, unless it was tantamount to rape, she wasn’t much for sex anyway), I like some of her ideas…not all of them, but some. While I am no John Galt or Howard Roarke, I am also definitely not an Ellsworth Toohey either.
I like capitalism. I am an entrepreneur of sorts. I have a lot more in line with a conservative mindset than liberal.
That is, until the question of so-called “social conservatism” comes up. Then, I am out of there. Being a screaming Libertarian, I am too much of a, “that it harm no one, do what thou wilt,” kind of person to even consider embracing this concept. Besides that, I am seen as a pariah by those who are social conservatives.
I just really don’t get the idea of social conservatism. It’s no one’s business what I do with my life, or whom I find attractive. I don’t care about how others live their lives. “Live and let live,” is a grand concept, whether it’s hanging in an AA meeting, or is being used as a way of living one’s life. Frankly, if more people lived that way, there’d be a lot less trouble in the world. We need less Gladys Kravitz’s in the world, not more.
While I would normally shrink from admitting my conservatism, I feel comfortable doing it here. I really don’t know why that is, I just do. While I am sure I the people who read my articles and comments at http://www.opednews.com probably think I’m not quite as progressive as they’d like, I have yet to admit my conservative streak there.
Anyway, until about a year ago, I had never met a gay Republican. Then, in one night, I met about a dozen or so. It was a very mind expanding thing. I got a little scared when I started to agree with some of their ideas. However, I have always been one to believe that everything I think I know, including what I know about the “truth” is subject to review. Ergo, since meeting those guys (and one lesbian), I have decided that one need not be afraid to admit they have some conservative ideas.
So here I am to admit that to myself and to the world for the first time officially. It actually feels good.
Now, as to whether I’d vote for a Republican, I’d have to say that better be one really moderate Republican before I’d consider it. So far, none of the Republican loser brigade for 2008 has moved me. Guiliani is just too smarmy for my tastes. McCain, a man I once respected, is way too much like DUBYA, and far too sycophantic to the “base”. Romney gives me the creeps. He reminds me of the used car salesman trying to tell you that the yellow paint on that door jamb is a new kind of primer. The others strike me as background noise.
If I were asked for whom I would vote in the 2008 presidential election, I’d have to say John Edwards. I’d pick Obama a really close second. Even though I like Bill Clinton, I get a really bad feeling from Hillary. She seems a bit too smarmy for my tastes…and she won’t admit she made a mistake. Humility is something I think makes a truly good leader, and she ain’t got it!
So there you have it.
Blessed be!
Pappy
posted by Brian Miller on
We’ve received responses to our surveys from Libertarian presidential nomination contenders, and here are some random quotes in no particular order. . .
DOMA is transparently unconstitutional, and I will work vigorously for its elimination.
…
The case against forbidding Americans to serve in the military because of sexual orientation or gender identity has never stood up to scrutiny, whether the excuse was “vulnerability to blackmail” or “harmful to morale” or whatever. We know that many, many gay men, lesbians (and I assume transgendered persons as well) have served, and continue to serve, honorably and often valiantly in the armed forces of the United States. We’ll never know HOW many, because their patriotism and dedication have been rewarded with discrimination, abuse and the threat of expulsion or even prosecution if they don’t hide their true selves from those around them.
…
I fully support openly gay individuals serving our nation. I will do everything within my power to immediately eliminate the DADT policy and all other such discriminatory practices. One’s sexual partners and orientation prior to and during military service is no business of the federal government. I will order an immediate end to this horrible injustice by the federal government against LGBTQ individuals. I believe in full equality, and I oppose all laws that discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender Americans.
…
I will take immediate steps to eliminate all federal discrimination against LGBTQ people.
…
Immigration law has long been discriminatory throughout our nation’s history, so I will use my power to bring equality–across the board–to our immigration policy since federal discrimination against any group of people is unjust. I am for immigration equality.
…
I will work vigorously to keep Uncle Sam out of your bedroom.
…
I’d direct the IRS to treat a “certificate of marriage”
from your church or other social organization on par with a
government-issued “license” as proof of marriage to your spouse.
…
I personally boycott businesses whose owners I believe to
be homophobic, and I tell them why.
…
Achieving the elimination of marriage apartheid, and every other legal and political manifestation of homophobia, isn’t optional. To fall short of that goal is to fall short of realizing the full promise of America.
Talk about an embarrassment of riches! Until the old party candidates start talking about these issues with this sort of clarity, it will be extremely difficult for me to take them seriously.
posted by Fitz on
“Talk about an embarrassment. Until the old party candidates start talking about these issues with this sort of clarity, it will be extremely difficult for me to take them seriously.”
Who couldent pander this openly when they dont have a hairs chance in hell of even getting air time much less elected.
Be sure to keep us apraised of the meanderings of the CONSTITUTION PARTY, GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES (GREEN PARTY), AMERICA FIRST PARTY, AMERICAN PARTY, AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY, AMERICAN REFORM PARTY, INDEPENDENCE PARTY , LABOR PARTY, NATURAL LAW PARTY, NEW PARTY, REFORM PARTY , & the rest of those participating (hardly) in our vibrant democracy.
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
posted by Mark on
Based on the debate the other day, it seems obvious that supporting the disaster in Iraq and American imperialism is the main concern of all Republican candidates except for Ron Paul.
Also, note that only Ron Paul had a list of major government programs he would eliminate.
Paul’s record on gay issues is mixed. He supported DOMA (like Clinton)but opposed the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment
posted by Timothy on
Brian,
I wasn’t trying to say Guiliani was consistent or was perfect on this issue. But you used the word “renounced” and it wasn’t accurate.
While you are quite good at pointing at the failings of those within the Republican or Democrat party (and they are many), I think that you sometimes run the risk of losing credibility by not sticking to absolute accuracy.
I’d really rather that you provide accurate information rather than serve as an advocate for your party. If I am able to trust your information, then I can determine for myself whom to support. If however your information is filtered through partisanship and is neither accurate nor complete then I cannot put any more reliance on you than on those who are “Republican first” or “Democrat first” (which seem to dominate this forum). You would then just come across not as a watch and witness against the failings of the Democrats or Republicans but rather a voicepiece for the Libertarian party, willing to say anything or do anything to advance the Party to the detriment of integrity. Please don’t be that.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I was reassured by the results of some of the unscientific polling after the Republican candidates’ debate the other night showing that Ron Paul did so well. I was especially impressed when he refused to be intimidated by Giuliani’s posturing. When the GOP crashes and burns (and November 2006 was only a prelude), there will need to be some well-grounded conservatives left to pick up the pieces.
posted by Brian Miller on
I wasn’t trying to say Guiliani was consistent or was perfect on this issue. But you used the word “renounced” and it wasn’t accurate.
It is accurate. Unless you think that Guiliani declaring that civil unions “go too far” isn’t a renunciation of his prior pro-civil-union position.
posted by Brian Miller on
those participating (hardly) in our vibrant democracy.
We have four national parties (parties on every state’s ballot or the vast majority of states’ ballots).
Though I can understand your reticence/contempt towards democratic participation by all Americans. You are, after all, a Republican (and firm believer in the dictatorial power of the executive).
posted by Timothy on
Brian,
I think you may misunderstand the meaning of the word “renounce”:
1 : to give up, refuse, or resign usually by formal declaration
2 : to refuse to follow, obey, or recognize any further : REPUDIATE
I saw no delaration. I heard no repudiation.
Feel free to say that he seems to be flip-flopping, or that he’s playing fast and lose with technicalities, or that he seems to be less supportive now. But don’t say “Guiliani has already renounced his positions on gay issues” because that isn’t supported by the facts.
You see, Brian, I’m not here to win blog-points or to try and spin my agenda. So I really don’t find factual inaccuracies to be useful – even if they are mine. If I’m wrong, I back down. Give it a try some time, it isn’t that painful.
posted by Timothy on
Brian,
I sympathize with the Libertarian Party and find that I share many positions. And I hope that it becomes a more influential player on the national scene.
However, let’s not fool ourselves or let our partisanship overwhelm our common sense.
We have four national parties (parties on every state’s ballot or the vast majority of states’ ballots).
In the Congress we have one independant in the House and one in the Senate. All other members are either Democrat or Republican. We truly are – at the national level in any case – a two-party political system.
posted by Timothy on
The Right Reverend Doctor James Dobson has now proclaimed from on high that he will not vote for Rudy Guiliani.
posted by Brian Miller on
to refuse to follow, obey, or recognize any further : REPUDIATE
I saw no delaration. I heard no repudiation.
You saw and heard what you wanted to see and hear, obviously. If condemning civil unions in practice isn’t renunciation of support for civil unions, then what exactly is it?
We truly are – at the national level in any case – a two-party political system.
Then go vote for Republicans and Democrats and act shocked when they pull back from their positions.
Just as the phrase “we live in a heterosexual country, gay rights will never go anywhere” has been disproven, so too will the other truisms fall.
And even if I’m incorrect, voting for a candidate who stands for the right thing sends a strong message to other candidates who want our money and votes.
posted by Timothy on
And even if I’m incorrect, voting for a candidate who stands for the right thing sends a strong message to other candidates who want our money and votes.
That argument is valid. And I have, at times, voted for a candidate that was neither Dem nor Rep.
so too will the other truisms fall.
I suspect you’re right.
posted by Mad John on
Moral people do not support torture. Moral people do not vote for people who support torture. Therefore, Giuliani is a nonstarter for me, as are all the other Repubs except Paul and McCain. (And McCain is unsuitable for other reasons).
Is torture just a nonissue for folks here? I’d think a gay readership might be more attuned to the issue.
posted by LeBain on
This is not a shift of GOP voters to a different ideology. This is a shift of GOP voters to a person with leadership abilities.
If someone else with a different ideology had the same leadership abilities, GOP voters would be gravitating there instead.
posted by ETJB on
No third party is going to have a chance of winning the White House. Maybe a very wealthy “independent” that does not really stand for much, but the Libertarians and Greens have not got a chance.
Why? Because of specific election law reforms that need to be changed BEFORE they became meaningful choices. It is hard to get on the ballot if you are a not a DNC/RNC, it is hard to raise money, it is almost impossible to get into the debates, etc.
If you want to change it (as I do), then join groups such as Fair Vote and subsubscribe to Ballot Access News. Dont simply complain or point fingers.
posted by Craig on
I’m with you, Mad. The picture of most Republican candidates, and the audience, trying to outdo each other on how much torture they would engage in, was disgusting. Ron Paul looks more appealing all the time.
posted by Craig2 on
If it helps, US Republicans aren’t the only politically prehensile ones. New Zealand currently has a Leader of the Opposition* who voted against our Civil Union Act (but later, also voted for relationship equivalence law reforms, against a proposed same-sex marriage ban, which was heavily defeated on its first parliamentary reading).
First, he said he supported inclusive adoption reform. One backflip later, he’d resoundbyted, saying that he did
“privately” support inclusive adoption reform, but now regarded himself as bound by the opinions of his (conservative,
rural) electorate.
Sigh.
Craig2
Wellington
New Zealand
posted by Doug on
One man, Giulliani, cannot change the GOP which is corrupt and morally bankrupt from top to bottom.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Moral people do not support torture. Moral people do not vote for people who support torture.
And yet, every move that these “moral people” make seems to be in favor of those who not only support torture, but engage in it freely and openly — i.e. Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
That is because their “morality” is subjective and based primarily on being anti-Bush. They have no qualms about allowing torture to continue, even on a grand and systematic scale, if it’s being done on people of races and religions that they consider less than desirable, like the people of Iraq, if the press is willing to be complicit in covering it up, as CNN and others were, if ignoring it is generating money for them or pleasing their European allies, as it was, and if putting a stop to it might involve American casualties, as it has.
When torture becomes an everyday occurrence for minor crimes, as it was in Saddam’s Iraq and al-Qaeda’s Afghanistan, then call me. However, in the US, we rightly reserve it for the most extreme of cases when there are no other options, and we roundly punish those who misuse it, as we saw with Abu Ghirab; given that, the only concern with it I have is when you have people like Ron Paul saying they would rather thousands of people die than someone be inconvenienced in the slightest to get information out of them.
posted by Craig on
No, 30, we don’t “rightly reserve torture for the most extreme cases”. We outlaw it, period. Because it’s immoral, anti Christian, and useless. Fortunately, General Petraeus has reaffirmed that stand.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Craig, I repeat myself; your view of whether or not torture is “immoral, anti Christian, and useless”, is entirely based on who is doing it.
When it is done by the United States in extreme situations and, when abused, appropriately identified, investigated, and punished, you say it is all three.
When it is done systematically by Saddam Hussein, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the like for extreme crimes like not wearing a burqa or being seen talking to an Israeli, none of the three come up in conversation — and certainly not to the level that anything should actually be done about any of them.
Petraeus’s letter confirmed the obvious; torture is an extreme measure for an extreme situation, and virtually nothing that our troops would have to deal with would justify it — which means they should avoid it, since the cost would far outweigh the benefit. But it still remains our prerogative to do it.
posted by Timothy on
Some people live in their own parallel world. In their world, those who disagee with them on any issue are, by definition, supporters of evil.
Thus, if you oppose torture by the US (like John McCain) then you must, by definition, support torture by Saddam Hussein or Hezbollah.
On that world it isn’t possible to oppose torture in general whether by the US or by its enemies. On that world one cannot simply say “torture dehumanizes me” or “those who use torture don’t deserve to win – even if it is my side”. On that world, consistency is impossible – and absolutes are defined purely by whether or not you agree with their proclaimations, however absurd.
I wonder what color is the sky on that world.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….Timothy, I’ve noticed you have a real problem with being direct. If you want to attack and insult me, go right ahead, rather than making oblique statements.
Meanwhile, I will believe that you oppose torture when you have the same screaming fits and demands for heads over Saddam Hussein, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the like doing it systematically and with zero punishment for the perpetrators as you do over the few abuses committed by US citizens that were investigated, tried, and punished by their own country.
The absolute is this; that which protects the most lives is the best option. If given the choice between torturing someone to obtain information or allowing the lack of it to cost thousands of innocent civilian lives, I choose the former.
Now, Timothy, have the balls to stand up and say that torture is never justified, even if the information obtained saves thousands of lives; you would rather innocent civilians die than have terrorists who are plotting their deaths be inconvenienced for information.
As I said above, torture is an extreme measure for an extreme situation, and people who abuse it should be investigated, tried, and if necessary, punished. But I will never absolutely forswear its use.
posted by ETJB on
“The absolute is this; that which protects the most lives is the best option.”
That may be a semi-utilitarian argument. However, what would protect the lives would be to kill everyone or implant behavior control chips into their brains.
I actually grew up in a nation where the government had power to use torture against anyone that it deemed to be a threat to society, state, family, or the government…
“If given the choice between torturing someone to obtain information or allowing the lack of it to cost thousands of innocent civilian lives, I choose the former.”
The problem is; information gathered from torture is generally not very accurate. Without due process their is little to ensure that we are actually capturing/torturing terrorists.
This is a problem (for many reasons), but if we screw up it damages our reputation because people will hold the USA up to a higher standard because we are the strongest nation on earth and we are the ones doing lots of stuff in the Middle East.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
However, what would protect the lives would be to kill everyone or implant behavior control chips into their brains.
But, unfortunately, the only regimes that are making those types of arguments — at least the “kill everyone” ones — are ones like Ba’athist Iraq (previously), Taliban Afghanistan (previously), Syria, Hamas, Hizbollah, and Iran — ones that so-called “anti-torture” people don’t see the need to do anything about, and which Nancy Pelosi claims are “peaceful”.
This is a problem (for many reasons), but if we screw up it damages our reputation because people will hold the USA up to a higher standard because we are the strongest nation on earth and we are the ones doing lots of stuff in the Middle East.
So, in other words, the rest of the world is judging the United States hypocritically and using standards on us that they would never use on anyone else.
In that case, who gives a rat’s ass what they think? Better yet, why should we let them dictate our policies?