« Our Blogging Future, Ctd. | Main | Resign, Senator »

Richard Milhouse Giuliani

19 Jul 2007 02:21 pm

giuliani5.jpg

John Podhoretz and Peter Robinson both dismiss Michael Gerson's case for a Rudy-Nixon analogy. Here's JPod:

... unlike Nixon in 1968, Giuliani actually has a record of executive governance ... During his eight years in New York, he cut welfare benefits, cut two dozen taxes, balanced budgets, and used recsission powers to refuse to spend boondoggle money voted by the City Council. He achieved extensive deregulation and sought (unsuccessfully, and unfortunately) to revise the city's zoning law to make New York more hospitable to job-creating businesses.

Of all the candidates in the race, Giuliani is the person who has the greatest claim on having fought for — against a violently hostile liberal establishment — and achieved some very important governmental changes, all of which deserve to be called "conservative."

Yes, but ...

... being a conservative in New York City is awfully different from being a conservative in national politics. Andy Ferguson put it best:

Yet Giuliani's conservatism was a uniquely New York artifact, just as the fever from which he rescued his city was singular and without parallel anywhere else. He cut taxes but taxes remained high. He reduced red tape but the city's regulatory apparatus remained vast. He reduced the rate of growth in government spending to close a budget deficit, but by the end of his mayoralty the deficit had reopened and grown larger than the one he originally faced. Mostly his program, and the source of his success, involved the reapplication of common sense principles that only New Yorkers, alone among the country at large, had been stupid enough to forget so thoroughly: Personal safety and civic order are preconditions of any kind of progress; work is better than welfare; lower taxes encourage economic activity; small crimes lead to big crimes, and crime of any kind deserves punishment; sex shops are antisocial disruptions of neighborhood life. And graffiti, by God, isn't art. To paraphrase Cindy Adams, only in New York, kids, would such truisms come as a revelation, much less appear to be a right-wing agenda.

The fact is that on nearly every national domestic-policy issue - from immigration to gun control to campaign-finance reform to abortion to judicial appointments - Rudy has to distance himself from his record as New York's mayor in order to plausibly call himself a conservative. Distance himself he has, in many cases, but not effectively enough to change the perception that he remains a conservative-for-NYC centrist, more Rockefeller Republican than Reagan Democrat, who's tacking rightward for purely pragmatic reasons. Which is why the Nixon parallel makes a certain sense: both men rose to prominence in unusual political contexts - 1990s New York and early-Cold War America, respectively - that made them seem more right-wing than they actually were, and both men capitalized on that perception to win conservative votes. It carried Nixon all the way to the White House, and if it carries Rudy there as well conservatives should be prepared for the possibility that they'll be similarly unhappy with the results.

Where the parallel breaks down, I think, is on the specific domestic issues where Giuliani is likely to disappoint conservatives. Nixon disappointed on size-of-government questions, and his doppelganger in that particular respect is none other than Gerson's own ex-boss; Giuliani, so far as I can tell, is likely to please the Right on taxes and spending, while quite possibly disappointing on everything else.

Photo by Flickr user Michael Millhollin used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments (11)

The real parallel is personal: both Giuliani and Nixon were attracted to the Republican Party because it was the party of "toughness" which fit their own intense win-at-all-costs personality.

Now, I'm a Republican, and there are times when toughness is necessary, but after Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, "enhanced interrogation," Dick Cheney, etc., neither the party, nor the country, needs right now a more intense "win at all costs" personality at the helm.

Giulini seems fairly "conservative" on taxes, defense, foreign policy, and probably on economic policy generally. (It's not only in New York that barring Arafat from entering the city or seizing Russian embassy cars is somewhat remarkable, for instance).

He's centrist to liberal on social policies, but I'm not sure how much he might come as a disappointment. As President, Giuliani might not talk about God as much as W does, but where the rubber meets the road, how different would he be?

- There just aren't that many opportunities for the President to be socially conservative. Giuliani probably wouldn't spend a lot of social capital fighting stem cell research or gay civil unions, but those issues are going to be decided primarily by the balance in Congress, not by the President.

- On judicial nominations, Giuliani will probably be pretty conservative because of his judicial philosophy, and because the Federalist society members will be the ones with all the connections. I don't see him applying an abortion litmus test, but I suspect the result will be the same.

- Ultimately, the question may be how socially conservative do you expect any likely GOP nominee to be? I don't really foresee Thompson, McCain or Romney spending a lot of capital vetoing stem cell funding either if a Congressional majority wants it. (Maybe civil unions, though). I'll grant that Romney or McCain are somewhat less likely to have a White House mistress, and that Huckabee and Brownback are much more socially conservative ideologically, but among the likely candidates, where's the difference?

The difference is in stuff that movement pro lifers actually care about, such as the Mexico city policy, for example, which forbids US tax dollars being spent overseas for programmes which involve abortion. This drives population controllers at the UN nuts, but it costs damn all politically and pro lifers love it.

They also love it when the US, at UN level, are on the side of poor Third World countries against the same population controllers who are trying to turn abortion into an international human right. Prior to Bush, the US was using its muscle for 8 years to try and strongarm more traditional countries into accepting such international norms.

It's also nice when the President uses his office as a bully pulpit to promote your values and you don't have to worry about his appointments to sensitive offices because you know he'll keep his eye on the ball as regards your issue. All of that's nice, and those involved at the business end of the pro life struggle know that legislation and judical appointments are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what the Executive branch can do for you or against you. At least 75-80 per cent of what the Executive Branch does is not obvious, but low level appointments and barely noticed executive orders can actually make a big difference in the kind of things you have to fight.

I think of the parallel as more one of personality than policy, as the first poster does, but I think he circles around the points of comparison. More specifically, Giuliani has demonstrated a sturdy and pernicious loyalty to highly dubious cronies, authoritarian governing tendencies, and a low-level undercurrent of misanthropy that fit with the biographical material I've seen on Nixon. People (including most New Yorkers, and I am one) forget how much New Yorkers disliked Rudy in the year or two before the attack.

I say all this as someone who thinks of him as the best mayor this city has seen in my lifetime.

Dissapoint the right on everything else?

Ah, but you forget torture!

The fact is that on nearly every national domestic-policy issue - from immigration to gun control to campaign-finance reform to abortion to judicial appointments...

Wow. Ross surely has a different definition of "nearly every national domestic-policy issue" than I do. Here I was thinking that taxes and crime and spending and government accountability and homeland security and welfare and education and labor and affirmative action were "national domestic-policy issues". Because, you know, Giuliani has a conservative record on all those things. Thank you Ross for setting me straight that those things aren't "national domestic-policy issues" - only abortion and stem cell research are.

Is Giuliani paranoid like Nixon? I admit that personality-wise and political-positioning wise Giuliani seems a lot like Nixon, but paranoia is probably a significant difference.

The most important point of comparison between Nixon and Giuliani is their credibility as "law and order" candidates. I recently spent some time in Hazelton, PA talking with local residents about the problems they face with immigrants. The situation is far more complex than was reported in the national media, but what emerged from the conversations was the overwhelming importance of crime as a perceived threat to their community.

If Giuliani were to mount a strong law and order campaign he could tap into a lot of the anti-immigrant sentiment without becoming overtly restrictionist.

My blog post on the subject has generated e-mail from people in other parts of the country who have similar concerns as those I reported for Hazelton. They too are looking for a strong law and order candidate.

They too are looking for a strong law and order candidate.

In the face of this Administration, who isn't? I'm not sure that going Republican is the way to do it, though.

Law and order doesn't have the appeal it once did. Crime rates have dropped significantly and racial concerns have become less widespread.

Adam Greenwood raises a fair point:

"Is Giuliani paranoid like Nixon? I admit that personality-wise and political-positioning wise Giuliani seems a lot like Nixon, but paranoia is probably a significant difference."

The difference is that Nixon thought everyone was out to get him, whereas Giuliani is out to get everyone else.