Nixon Redux?

Matt Continetti, making the case against the Rudy-as-Nixon argument, points out that Rudy's "economic program is pretty much in a separate galaxy from Nixon's" - that the Giuliani neocon-influenced foreign policy is likewise roughly the opposite of the detente-and-realism overseas vision of the Nixon-Kissinger years - and that Rudy is very unlikely to appoint the next Harry Blackmun, what with his Federalist Society legal advisors and his pledge to appoint strict constructionist judges. These are strong points; where Matt's case is weaker, I think, is when he tries to rebut Michael Gerson's suggestion that Giuliani is "a talented man without an ideological compass." Matt writes:

The only evidence for this that Gerson offers is Giuliani's endorsement of Democrat Mario Cuomo over George Pataki in the 1994 New York gubernatorial race. But Giuliani's (wrongheaded) decision had more to do with his longstanding rivalry with Pataki and Pataki's patron, former New York senator Alfonse D'Amato, than ideology.

Hmmm. I would say that a Republican politician's willingness to endorse a member of the opposition party - and not just any Democrat, but a lion of liberalism - suggests a weaker-than-average ideological compass, at the very least.

But leave that aside. The real evidence for Giuliani's ideological promiscuity lies in the striking difference between today's Rudy and the Rudy who ran New York. The same Rudy who preaches strict-constructionism now had a slightly different judicial philosophy during his years as Mayor. The same Rudy who applauded the Supreme Court's decision in the Wisconsin Right to Life case used to be a proud supporter of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. And so on and so forth. Obviously Rudy's not the only flip-flopper in the race, but this doesn't change the fact that his shifting views - or at least his slipperiness - on a wide variety of issues suggest a politician who's closer to Nixon than to Reagan in his commitment to ideological principle. Combine this quality with the visceral, "he's on our side because liberals hate him" identification that many conservatives feel for Giuliani (something that his fellow flip-flopper, Romney, doesn't enjoy), and you get the basis for a not-unreasonable analogy to the Tricky Dick experience.

The best argument for dismissing this analogy as irrelevant, to my mind, is the conservative movement's institutional strength in the present-day GOP (a strength it didn't enjoy in the Nixon era), and the pressure that movement-conservatives can exert on Giuliani to conform to the more right-wing "New Rudy" persona he's slipped in for the '08 race. I don't think Rudy gives a tinker's dam about strict-constructionist judges, for instance, but I do think the Right is in a far better position to hold his feet to the fire and head off Harry Blackmun-style appointments today than it was in the early 1970s. And the same goes for gun control, immigration, and all the rest. If there's a case for ideological conservatives voting for Rudy, it's this: Not that he's less of an opportunist than Nixon, but that opportunism will dictate that he dance with them what brung him.

Of course, for those of us on the right who aren't quite on the same page as this author (and Giuliani foreign-policy adviser), this isn't always a comforting thought.

Update: Reihan has thoughts here.

Comments

Another sign of ideological flexibility: look up Rudy's record on rent control.

Posted by Hunter | July 24, 2007 12:46 AM

Another sign of ideological flexibility: look up Rudy's record on rent control.

Posted by Hunter | July 24, 2007 12:46 AM

FYI, the term "strict constructionist" was originally popularized by Richard Nixon, who promised to appoint judges who would trim Warren court precedents, especially on law and order.

If anything, my bet is that Giuliani, if he was elected, would actually be even MORE sensible (or "unreliable", from the conservatives' perspective) on judges than Nixon turned out to be, because he will want to preserve Roe.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 24, 2007 2:17 AM

I like that Norman Rockwell portrait ...

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 24, 2007 5:50 AM

-- the visceral, "he's on our side because liberals hate him" identification that many conservatives feel for Giuliani --

Ross, this is an interesting observation that deserves more exposition in another post. It seems to me that many on the right who fling about accusations of "Bush derangement syndrome" are really just projecting their own "liberal derangment syndrome;" their own politics are so completely shaped by their contempt for liberals that their primary yardstick for evaluating Bush is to gauge how much liberals hate him. So no matter how much Bush screws up the country, or undermines genuine conservative principles, they think he's doing great because he's driving the liberals crazy. This is a recipe for a train wreck of a political movement. Unfortunately, it's doing a lot of harm to the country in the process.

Posted by Jorge | July 24, 2007 7:52 AM

There's another element where Rudy and Nixon seem awfully similar: part of their popularity rests on the sense that they are committed to vigorously fighting the main foreign policy threat facing the country. Nixon made his name, of course, as a vigorous anti-communist (even if he turned out to be more of a detente-nik) while Rudy appeals to many because they think he would fight seriously radical Islamic terrorists. Rudy seems much less likely to evolve (especially given his foreign policy advisors).

Posted by Michael Simpson | July 24, 2007 8:39 AM

The sentiment that 'he's one of us because liberals hate him' and Giuliani's notorious thin-skinned arrogance make it less likely that he can be pressured into doing what the right wants later.

Posted by Adam Greenwood | July 24, 2007 12:00 PM

Nixon and Giuliani share an underlying "beastiness", though it comes out differently in Giuliani than it did in Nixon. In Giuliani it comes out in his "in your face" actions that seem to be his defining characteristic -- a sort of ongoing F.U. to all around him.

His supporters seem to misconstrue this "in your face beastiness" as leadership. They are wrong. Real leadership is what was in Ike -- a quiet confidence resting on enormous inner strength, the kind of inner strength that won the war in Europe and stood up to the impulsive Military back here at home (unlike some other inwardly weak but outwardly blustering little President).

Ike didn't like Nixon and he wouldn't like Giuliani either, for much the same reason. They are both creepy. Giuliani is even creepier than Nixon was. Giuliani married his cousin, carried on an open affair while he was mayor, lived with two homosexual men while he was getting his divorce and dressed up on at least three occasions in public as a tranvestite. That's all a level of that not even Nixon reached.

Posted by Jhopolong | July 24, 2007 6:03 PM

--..but that opportunism will dictate that he dance with them what brung him.--

There may be a case where a liberal or centrist Republican actually danced with those what brung him, but it doesn't leap readily to mind.
The old saying of course is 'fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me'.
Why are conservatives too stupid or too trusting to take that saying to heart?

Posted by Barney Frank | July 24, 2007 7:32 PM

If anything, my bet is that Giuliani, if he was elected, would actually be even MORE sensible (or "unreliable", from the conservatives' perspective) on judges than Nixon turned out to be, because he will want to preserve Roe.

Wishing to preserve Roe v. Wade, which may count as the grossest and most indefensible exercise in judicial policy-making in this nation's history, is anything but 'sensible'.

Giuliani is even creepier than Nixon was. Giuliani married his cousin...

Regina Peruggi is his second cousin.

Posted by Art Deco | July 24, 2007 8:01 PM

Wait a minute. Giuliani's reasoning on public funding of abortion was that it's a constitutional right, so it must be publicly funded for those who can't affort it. The guy has legal training doesn't he? Wasn't he a prosecutor? (I'm ready to get in line for my publicly funded gun).

His statement on 2nd amendment rights was that no one could ever "completely" take away your right to bear arms.

I don't want someone who thinks and talks about judicial issues like that appointing Federal Appeals Court and Supreme Court justices. I have no confidence in Rudy's "strict constructionist" promises. He doesn't seem to understand what that means. Blackmun probably thought of himself as a "strict constructionist" if that is what it means.

Posted by Jared | July 26, 2007 10:51 AM

Agree with the idea of conservatives loving W for irritating liberals. Obviously, if you're a conservative, irritating liberals must be a good thing, right?

Except not exactly. It's not as if liberals and conservatives are on complete opposite sides of the spectrum, when you look at the whole world. We are a lowercase-l liberal democracy, which means that we believe in things like freedom of speech and freedom of the press--these are so sancrosanct that Bush hasn't even tried to touch these things. There are a lot of countries that don't hold these values, and instead of viewing the political spectrum as starting with the John Birch Society and ending with the Socialists, it would be better to realize that we are all pretty far to the left in the grand scheme of things--the distance between conservatives and liberals in this country is actually kinda trivial when viewed in that context.

Therefore, it's not a zero-sum game between liberals and conservatives--there are things that could hurt both sides. It's not like the Republican Party is a fascist group and the Democratic Party is a Marxist crusade--many on either side would contend that the other is either fascist or Marxist, but weaking the truly liberal freedoms we enjoy helps neither the conservative nor the liberal cause. It helps only the Bush cause.

Posted by Lev | July 26, 2007 5:06 PM

xdzmjqy xitncyduj oepuld xghwqpli vdgkyfjea esjo smblgwad

Posted by hreczug htin | August 16, 2007 10:37 PM