The Liberal Candidate

Is Rudy Giuliani a new Barry Goldwater or a new Bobby Kennedy?

David Weigel from the December 2007 issue

(Page 4 of 4)

The Candidate
Giuliani has never served in uniform, never engaged in foreign policy more complicated than booting Yasser Arafat out of a New York Philharmonic performance. In a May 2007 speech to the Heritage Foundation and later in an article for Foreign Affairs, he defended the theory of pre-emptive war and the reconstruction by force of the Middle East. His long-term proposal: the “Stabilization and Reconstruction Corps,” a venture of the civilian government and the military that would plan for long-term occupations and nation-building efforts. Iraq, for Giuliani, was not a mistake. It was a missed opportunity. He has defended the foreign and domestic policies of the Bush administration with reservations, happily letting Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) outflank him on supporting the troop surge in Iraq. Like the rest of the GOP field, Giuliani has instead focused on 9/11 and put Iraq into that context: Al Qaeda’s attacks, he says, were the beginning of “the terrorists’ war against us.”

The day after the third Republican debate in New Hampshire, Giuliani’s campaign bus made its way along the Atlantic coast to speak in the tiny town of New Castle. George Carlisle, a New Hampshire Republican who emceed the event, explained that before Giuliani cleaned up the city, “New York was off the table. I wouldn’t even take my family there.” A radiologist named Jim Rini, whose only sticking point with Giuliani concerns whether he’d defend the Second Amendment, said he was drawn to the former mayor because he thinks he’s tough. John McCain lost Rini’s vote when he repeatedly, vehemently opposed the Bush administration on the torture of terrorists. “McCain is on the wrong side of interrogation,” said Rini.

And why did he trust Giuliani on that issue over a military veteran who was actually, famously, tortured for five years? “This is a war,” Rini said. “You can’t worry about what other countries will think of us, what is and isn’t torture. You need to be ready to interrogate those terrorists to their last, demonic breaths.”

Rini joined in the standing ovation when Giuliani strutted into the room, squinting and grinning ear to ear as he took the stage. He started with a joke about the recent debate’s frequent “show of hands” questions: “Do you want to use nuclear weapons? Right now? Yes or no?” He did a little Buster Keaton pantomime, jutting his hand up, throwing it behind his back as he ducked, smirking. The rest of the event was given over to Giuliani’s grand plans for America, for the war, for government agencies, for taxes, for everything. The biggest surprise was how little of the speech and the Q&A dealt with the September 11 attacks. Instead it focused on Giuliani’s prosecutions of mobsters, his reforms of the NYPD, his tax cuts, and CompStat.

“We took [CompStat] and we applied it to just about every other city agency,” Giuliani said. “We’ll get that kind of accountability in January 2009, when I become president, on my first day.” Big applause. “We can do BorderStat, to measure the success we’re having of stopping people illegally entering this country. If the CompStat program can reduce murder in the murder capital of the United States, it can secure our border.” Bigger applause. “You can take that same program, you can apply it to terror.” Listening to Rudy, you realize there is no problem CompStat can’t solve. It can fix federal spending. It can win the war on terror. It can steady his own presidential campaign.

If any of this sounds like micromanagement, well, that’s fine. “When I was mayor I had a sign on my desk that said ‘I’m responsible,’ ” Giuliani said. “I still have that sign. It reminds me that I’m responsible for everything that happens.”

President Giuliani would take on all manner of enemies, all kinds of “establishments,” and some of those fights might be worth having. Conservatives have long speculated about what Ronald Reagan could have been if he’d won the presidency when he was slightly younger and less exhausted. During the 2005 battle over Social Security, pro-privatization activists who’d spent decades setting up the debate became convinced that George W. Bush was too listless and incompetent to force through change.

Americans have a certain disdain for political crusading. Movements burn out and leaders overreach, and the hotter the moment the faster the cycle works. That’s not how Rudy Giuliani operates. In 1988, wrapping up his career as a U.S. attorney, he announced a lawsuit against the Teamsters and drew quotes from Kennedy’s report on the corruption hearings, The Enemy Within. Kennedy, Giuliani said, took heat for aggressively attacking the union and for basking in the media’s spotlight. But Kennedy’s strategy paid off.

“He was ridiculed,” Giuliani said. “He was vilified. He was hated irrationally. But he was right.” Anyone who wants to criticize Giuliani for his ego, his love of power, his view of an interventionist state, his view of America as a transformative military power, or his particular sense of freedom should study those words. He wants to be remembered the very same way.

David Weigel is an associate editor of Reason.

Comments

|11.14.07 @ 6:09PM|#

I have nothing of interest to offer but just wanted to say that was a very good piece, David.

|11.14.07 @ 6:14PM|#

"Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority."

That says it all. This man must not become our next president, no way, no how, under any circumstances.

|11.14.07 @ 6:15PM|#

I think it was a good piece, but I'm not sure why Weigel called him the liberal candidate. The article makes it clear Giuliani has become a neoconservative of sorts. And his fondness for Bobby Kennedy aside, he doesn't seem to support the causes that most strongly motivate contemporary liberals: abortion rights (he would appoint another Scalia, not another Ginsberg), universal health care, and a commitment to diversity.

Maybe "The Prosecutorial Candidate" would have been a better title?

|11.14.07 @ 6:15PM|#

I mean, Orwellian in its madness. Fucking Orwellian.

|11.14.07 @ 6:56PM|#

Guliani, god willing, will not win the presidency.

And Ashish, neoconservatives are liberals who got kicked out of the sandbox for smashing up everyone elses toys. Look how many ex-communists, socialists are in the neoconservative ranks and how callously they pursue power as an ends. Nobody, anywhere, should aspire to be a neoconservative.

Ska|11.14.07 @ 7:16PM|#

Yeah, JK, that comment is really scary. Hopefully there are only a handful of people who agree with it. Because we all know there are people who do.

|11.14.07 @ 7:19PM|#

If, as the Las Vegas odds makers expect, it comes down to Hillary vs. Rudy, I'm voting for Clinton, part two. I despise the woman.

You'll notice that Ron Paul is off the board.

duster|11.14.07 @ 7:45PM|#

Bobby Kennedy spoke out agaist drug prohibition, in pointing out that it benefitted organized crime and made criminals out of ordinary citizens. I wish Rudy were a little more like him in that way, but it doesn't jibe with his 'Freedom = Submission' equation. More than a handful of people agree with that, and they're the people politicians pretend to care about most.

CKG|11.14.07 @ 8:57PM|#

This is going to be very difficult, but I think if it comes down to Hillary versus Rudy, I'll have to back Hillary too. Neither give a damn about freedom, and so with either one, we'll have some dark years ahead. But at least Hillary is calculating enough that she won't fuck up. Rudy is so committed to his vision of the "War on Terror" as this era's Cold War, that he will never give up, even if the Middle East winds up becoming a melted-down puddle of radioactivity. Rudy will keep on fighting at all costs. Even despite this, there is a little part of me that still sort of likes him. Oddly enough. Not enough for me to actually vote for him, but just a bit.

Andrew|11.14.07 @ 9:01PM|#

Above all, great article. As someone who worked in New York in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I can tell you this: Things changed under Giuliani, generally for the better.

There is an autocratic side, yes. But then, this trait was perfect in NYC, long-called the "ungovernable city." You needed a butt-kicked like Rudy G. to whip it into shape. (And by "shape," I mean basic things like the ability to walk down a street at night with a reasonable assumption that you will NOT be mugged, harrassed, swindled etc.).

The question then before the house is: Can a great mayor make a great President?

M|11.14.07 @ 9:51PM|#

This man must not become our next president, no way, no how, under any circumstances.

No there's a seditious, and soon-to-be actionable, sentiment!

/snark

BakedPenguin|11.14.07 @ 10:51PM|#

...there is a little part of me that still sort of likes him. ...Not enough for me to actually vote for him, but just a bit.

There's a part of me that likes him, too. Not enough for me to vote for him, but enough to brake if he were ever to step in front of my car.

Of course, I like my car, too.

BakedPenguin|11.14.07 @ 11:29PM|#

Argh. That should have been "...I like my car, too, which is a good reason to brake."

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|11.14.07 @ 11:31PM|#

I want to post this Giuliani quote ("Freedom is...") on my Facebook page (I know, I'm a lame-o; I'm on Facebook), but I'm worried that people wouldn't understand that it was meant ironically.

It would be up there with such greats as:

"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die."

- Mel Brooks

"People should not be afraid of their government; governments should be afraid of their people"

-Alan Moore

and the all-time classic:

"There is a fine line between fiction and nonfiction, and I believe Jimmy Buffett and I snorted it in 1976."

-Kinky Friedman

(Thank you Reason, for introducing me to the last one!)

Kolohe|11.15.07 @ 12:29AM|#

Benito Mussolini in a coat and tie.

oncogenesis|11.15.07 @ 2:35AM|#

No, Kolohe. Grandpa Munster channeling Benito Mussolini.

|11.15.07 @ 7:49AM|#

Benito Mussolini in a coat and tie.

Given Rudy's well-known penchant for drag, could we be looking at an election where both our candidates are "Hugo Chavez in a pantsuit"?

Broomstick Hilda|11.15.07 @ 9:38AM|#

I mean basic things like the ability to walk down a street at night with a reasonable assumption that you will NOT be mugged, harrassed, swindled etc.).

Things didn't change one bit. The mugging, hassling, and swindling was just done by the police instead of private citizens.

Episiarch|11.15.07 @ 9:50AM|#

Why would anyone vote for either Hillary or Rudy? Their differences are miniscule (unless you are a party partisan who wants your particular authoritarian in charge), and voting for one over the other is a tacit endorsement of that person. Better to not vote at all and hope the turnout is so low that it sends a message.

|11.15.07 @ 9:53AM|#

Heres pretty much where I stand-

Hillary Vs Rudy, I vote for the LP nutjob.

Hillary Vs Romney, I vote for Romney.

Hillary Vs Thompson, I vote for Thompson.

Hillary Vs McCain, again the LP nutjob.

AWIK DUNDER(head)OOOOO|11.15.07 @ 10:26AM|#

"Why would anyone vote for either Hillary or Rudy? Their differences are miniscule"

WHY YOU SISSY FAKE LIBERTARIAN CRAP ... MAN. GHOULIANI STANDS FOR STANDING UP AGAINST THE STANCES OF ISLAMOFACISM. 9/11 9/11 9/11. HILLARY SITS AND TAKES IT.

RUDY IS A TROO LIBERTARIAN. YOU ARE NOT. AND THAT MEANS YOU ARE... YOU ARE... YOU ARE....

A SILLY ASS FACE!!!!!!!

SO THERE.

crw|11.15.07 @ 12:30PM|#

Actually, in Hillary vs. Rudy, I'd hold my nose and vote Rudy. I'd rather have a power mad douche and divided government than a power mad douche and single party rule. Remember, a vote for Shrillary is a vote for letting the Dems do any damn thing they please.

|11.15.07 @ 2:13PM|#

Actually, in Hillary vs. Rudy, I'd hold my nose and vote Rudy. I'd rather have a power mad douche and divided government than a power mad douche and single party rule.

That's a pretty important thing to consider. Of course, there's always the expatriate option.

|11.17.07 @ 12:55AM|#

Rudy, whatever his faults, it as close to perfect a Republican candidate as we are ever likely to get. He is strong on national defense, tough on welfare, tough on crime, and liberal in the classical sense on economic matters. He's moderate on social issues and conservative on everything else. So are the majority of the American people.

Not only that he's a proven leader. He took New York, a crime-ridden socialist basket case and made it again into the world capital it once was. His leadership after 9-11 was magnificent.

Libertarians and conservatives should unite behind the best hope for defeating the socialist-Islamo-fascist coalition that dominates the Democratic Party today.

|11.17.07 @ 8:05AM|#

The impracticality of some many libertarians never ceases to amaze me. Guliani is certainly no prize from our perspective, but he is surely better than any of the statist Democrat alternatives. Faced with the poor choice of Guliani vs. any leftist Democrat, the rational libertarian should support the lesser of two evils. One party rule by statist Democrats for even four years could put this country on a long term collectivist path that would take decades at best to reverse.

McKinley|11.25.07 @ 3:10PM|#

"Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority." Followed shortly by "...how to stretch the laws like a trapeze net, catching criminals and nuisances who had thought themselves invulnerable." then followed by "The mayor directed the Metropolitan Transit Authority to strip the ads." obviosly a complete contempt for law other then his own. Hillary vs. Rudy: Nanny state vs. Police state.