Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Coming Giuliani Dictatorship
Matthew Yglesias, after linking to Matt Welch's instant-classic April Reason cover story, links an anti-Rudy manifesto by New York "civic-republican" Jim Sleeper*.
The first serious problem is structural and political: A man who fought the inherent limits of his mayoral office as fanatically as Giuliani would construe presidential prerogatives so broadly he’d make George Bush’s notions of “unitary” executive power seem soft.
Even in the 1980s, as an assistant attorney general in the Reagan Justice Department and U.S. Attorney in New York, Giuliani was imperious and overreaching, He made the troubled daughter of a state judge, Hortense Gabel, testify against her mother and former Miss America Bess Meyerson in a failed prosecution charging, among other things, that Meyerson had hired the judge’s daughter to bribe help “expedite” a messy divorce case. The jury was so put off by Giuliani’s tactics that it acquitted all concerned, as the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus recalled ten years later in assessing Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr’s subpoena of Monica Lewinsky’s mother to testify against her daughter.
At least, as U.S. Attorney, Giuliani served at the pleasure of the President and had to defer to federal judges. Were he the President, U.S. Attorneys would serve at his pleasure -- a dangerous arrangement in the wrong hands, we’ve learned -- and he’d pick the judges to whom prosecutors defer.
As mayor, Giuliani fielded close aides like a fast and sometimes brutal hockey team, micro-managing and bludgeoning city agencies and even agencies that weren’t his, like the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Board of Education. They deserved it richly enough to make his bravado thrilling to many of us, but it wasn’t very productive. And while this Savonarola disdained even would-be allies in other branches of government, he wasn’t above cutting indefensible deals with crony contractors and pandering shamelessly to some Hispanics, orthodox Jews, and other favored constituencies.
Good stuff, and worrisome if you care about executive power and
civil liberties. But this isn't the kind of criticism that will
hurt Giuliani in a general election, is it? I can't readily name a
politician who's suffered because he "got too tough," as long as
what/whom he was lording it over is unpopular.
*errata: I originally referred to Sleeper as a neoconservative. He
ain't.
|3.9.07 @ 1:29PM|#
The real opposition to Giuliani will come, and is already
starting to come, from "serious" Catholics. Not only is Giuliani
pro-choice and pro-tolerance for gays, his current "marriage" is,
in Catholic doctrine, a continuing mortal sin. Giuliani got a
divorce to end his second marriage, not an annulment. Divorces, as
every Catholic at least knows, is forbidden by the Catholic Church,
absolutely. In the fifties, people were excommunicated (i.e.,
damned to Hell) for getting a divorce. Now that Giuliani has
"remarried" (not a real marriage in the eyes of the Church, of
course), he cannot be forgiven the sin of his divorce until he
leaves his "false" wife and returns to his "real" one.
Conservative Catholics are reluctant to publicly attack Giuliani on
this point (he is a Republican, after all), but they feel it in
their gut, and they resent it. And they will go after him on
abortion, gay rights, etc.
|3.9.07 @ 1:34PM|#
"As mayor, Giuliani fielded close aides like a fast and
sometimes brutal hockey team, micro-managing and bludgeoning city
agencies and even agencies that weren't his, like the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority and Board of Education."
There may be good reasons to object to Giuliani as a Presidential
candidate. Certainly, his behavior in the Myerson case and others
as a U.S. attorney was reprehensible. Of course most if not all
U.S. Attorneys are publicity seeking sleaze balls. So, I am not
sure you can't write off some of Guilliani's behavior to the nature
of the position and I am not sure Rudy was any worse than any of
the others.
I will say this for Rudy, if there is one organization that
absolutely deserves to be bludgeoned and micro-managed, it is the
City of New York. He inherited the worst run city in perhaps all of
the free world when he became Mayor of New York. If he hadn't
bludgeoned and micro-managed that city he would have been remiss in
his duties as mayor.
Dave W.|3.9.07 @ 1:42PM|#
I can't readily name a politician who's suffered because he
"got too tough"
I would say Lyndon Johnson. Dick Cheney, too.
|3.9.07 @ 1:44PM|#
Alan,
"Conservative Catholics are reluctant to publicly attack Giuliani
on this point (he is a Republican, after all), "
Yeah, you know how those Conservative Catholics are, all voting
Republican and whatnot...
What planet again?
|3.9.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Alan,
I am sure all 15 or 20 "conservative Catholics" who still buy the
church teaching on divorce will vote against him.
|3.9.07 @ 3:14PM|#
I doubt the third marriage thing will hurt him with Catholics.
Hardly any Catholics pay attention to Church doctrine in that area
any more.
To get elected, all he has to do is plant some fake Islamic terror
communication somewhere, saying that
"El-Qaeda" is hoping the Democrats win as they are "soft on
terror". Just have it on O"Reilly" right before the
elections.
The best strategy for him is to just keep saying he knows how to be
tough on terror, as he was "in the trenches" for 9/11; and talk in
vague generalities about every other issue.
|3.9.07 @ 3:16PM|#
I've been saying this all along. Guiliani's got one tool in his toolbox, a whacking great hammer.
Guy Montag|3.9.07 @ 3:17PM|#
I doubt the third marriage thing will hurt him with
Catholics. Hardly any Catholics pay attention to Church doctrine in
that area any more.
Well, it does hurt him with MSM columnists who write about how
Catholics will vote.
|3.9.07 @ 3:46PM|#
Shit. I'm going to have to vote for Team Blue again, aren't
I?
Yeah, because we all know how rabidly anti-authoritarian Hillary
is.
Geez, some choice, eh?
|3.9.07 @ 3:49PM|#
Every time someone notices that Catholics don't vote the way the bishops tell them to, Tom Donoghue gets a shooting pain in his left temple.
JD|3.9.07 @ 4:01PM|#
John - I will grant you that Giuliani inherited a hell of a
mess. However, he also inherited a generally improving climate (for
example, no matter how much he wants to take credit for the drop in
crime rates, it was happening all over the US). And not every fly
needs to be crushed with a sledgehammer (think Chris Ofili and the
Brooklyn Museum). And he did nothing for the image of the police,
especially in New York's minority communities.
I am reminded of the adage, "Governing a great nation is like
cooking a small fish: you ruin it with too much poking." (Lao Tzu,
from the Tao Te Ching.)
Todd F.|3.9.07 @ 4:31PM|#
He lost my vote due to his stance on the 2nd amendment. I'm not
a gun freak or anything, I just don't see how his support of the
Assault Weapons Ban and gun bans in New York, square with the
constitution.
It's not just the divorce that would hurt Guliani when it comes to
the Catholic and Evangelical communities, it is almost everything
with his social views. If, as many in the Evangelical community and
I do, that life begins at conception, and if like the Catholics you
won't allow active members of your church to be homosexuals, and if
you believe that it is important to keep good relationships with
your family, then I don't see how the Evangelicals can square all
this with Guliani.
To support for a man like Guliani would put Catholic and other
churches in a purely political position after incidents like the
last election where a Catholic Priest threatened to cut off Kerry
from communion for his so called "wishy-washy" stance on abortion.
It would confirm to many both within and out of the Christian faith
that a number of churches and their leadership have become
hypocritical sects concerned with the election of Republicans
only.
I'm not saying that any of the other candidates are necessarily
better, but I don't see how Guliani could garner the support of
Christian conservatives unless a majority of them aren't nearly as
staunch in their beliefs as they sad they are when a Democratic
candidate disagrees with them.
|3.9.07 @ 4:31PM|#
I am much more afraid of this guy than of McCain. At least
McCain won't be opening any new torture camps, and we have no
indication he will be going after the people on his Enemies List
with the full force of the federal apparatus.
Could the next issue of Reason have the cover story Be
afraid of president Giuliani or will you keep on shilling for
the Italian-American New York Republicans?
|3.9.07 @ 4:43PM|#
On the other hand, the day Rudy gets the nomination all the
heads of the Christian Right pundits will explode one by one.
That'd be worth watching.
And if Hillary wins too, it'll be an all-NY election.
|3.9.07 @ 4:50PM|#
Guiliani's got one tool in his toolbox, a whacking great
hammer.
Please stop trying to make this man sound sexy.
|3.9.07 @ 5:01PM|#
"but I don't see how Guliani could garner the support of
Christian conservatives unless a majority of them aren't nearly as
staunch in their beliefs as they sad they are when a Democratic
candidate disagrees with them."
Rudy will get to nominate conservative justices. Religious
conservatives tend to think long-term.
|3.9.07 @ 5:09PM|#
Rudy is a tough one.
He is the only one to ever reduce property taxes in NYC and the
reduction in crime was amazing but he would have just as easliy
passed a smoking ban as Bloomberg did and he (and Bloomberg) have
some challenging personality issues.
Rhywun|3.9.07 @ 5:15PM|#
I don't see how Guliani could garner the support of
Christian conservatives [...]
I don't see why he should have to.
|3.9.07 @ 5:24PM|#
Rudy's Second Amendment positions definitely put my vote in
question. Speaking of, why the hell hasn't Hit and Run blogged the
DC Circuit's striking down of the District's insane gun laws? That
is by far the most important story of the day.
I wonder if any of the Reason staff actually own a gun? Why not?
Why isn't there somone on the Reason staff who covers gun rights
the way Ronald Baily covers Science or Balko covers SWAT abuses? If
there on thing that pisses me off about Reason more than any other
is how Second Amendment and gun rights issues are always treated as
second class issues. I really think it is a cultural problem with
the Reason staff. All of them are little suburbanite left and right
coasters who have never been around guns and don't feel passionate
about the issue.
|3.9.07 @ 5:37PM|#
Good point about 2nd Amendment coverage. Also, to be more specific about one of your previous comments, John. The city of NY needs to be bludgeoned, but especially, especially, especially the MTA (subways, buses, etc.).
Andrew|3.9.07 @ 5:51PM|#
John:
Balko does indeed own a gun. He had a nice, long post on why he
does at his personal website.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.9.07 @ 7:38PM|#
John, Culturally speaking, Reason, as an organization, is fine
on Amendment 2. I do agree, however, that there hasn't been as much
emphasis on gun rights as maybe we would like to see.
Quick Reminder: The ACLU doesn't think you have a right to own a
gun, so Nadine Strossen can schmooze with us here and there, and
I'll even buy her a glass of cab, but never, ever, will I support
her organization in any meaningful sense.
Some of my best friends are liberals regards, TWC
|3.9.07 @ 8:07PM|#
I'd forgotten about Guiliani proposing to extend his term of
office "on an emergency basis" after 9/11.
I guess with everything as crazy it was that week, the significance
of that didn't really hit me.
We don't do that in this country. That's pretty scary.
|3.9.07 @ 8:24PM|#
Quick Reminder: The ACLU doesn't think you have a right to own a gun, so Nadine Strossen can schmooze with us here and there, and I'll even buy her a glass of cab, but never, ever, will I support her organization in any meaningful sense.
See, I have issues with this. It's the perfect being the enemy of
the good. The ACLU's official position on 2nd Amendment cases is
... stay out of
them*. Sure, the ACLU won't stand up for the RKBA, but to my
knowledge they aren't fighting against it either (if I am wrong,
links please).
If RKBA is your litmus test, great. Support a group like Jews for the Preservation of Firearm
Ownership or if you can stand their authoritarian stance in
regards to the War on Drugs, the NRA. Neither the JPFO nor the NRA
lobby for any other right other than RKBA and the NRA feels
that criminals (even those involved in victimless crimes) deserve
to have mandatory minimums if they posses a gun.
Again, I am not saying that RKBA is not a valid litmus test, but
when you are willing to sacrifice your other rights so you can keep
a gun, it's not a winning scenario.
*IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
|3.9.07 @ 8:28PM|#
To add to my criticisms of the NRA above, remember that victimless crimes(felonies) include online gambling, bookmaking and prostitution. IOW, if a prostitute carries a gun for personal protection, according to the NRA she deserves a minimum of five years in prison when caught.
Guy Montag|3.9.07 @ 9:27PM|#
I'd forgotten about Guiliani proposing to extend his term of
office "on an emergency basis" after 9/11.
Seems you forgot a lot. What I remember was others beating the pot
for him to stay on and he saying that the process has been followed
and a new mayor has been elected.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.9.07 @ 9:35PM|#
Kwix, it's not just the gun issue and I don't have a litmus test
with respect to that. ACLU won't go to the mat for you when your
civil rights are violated by the IRS either.
BTW, from your link....easier than looking for it myself. The money
quote is this:
Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession
of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally
protected.
Hardly a hands off approach. But even if it is just a hands off
approach, hands-off is just a diplomatic way of saying John Q has
no right to own firearms.
Also interesting because Nadine doesn't care if something is
constitutional or not and said so in an interview with Cathy Young
some years ago. So constitutional is only important if it is used
to deny gun owners standing under the law but not important if it
involves some other form of civil rights abuse that the ACLU finds
intriguing. Like prayer in school. Or reproductive rights.
Aside from the constitutional issue there is also the moral issue
as well. In a libertarian society a gun would be treated no
differently than any other personal property.
I'm not willing to sacrifice any rights and those rights include
gun ownership if I so desire it.
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing
interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939
case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms
applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated
militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the
possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally
protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the
regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
The Wine Commonsewer|3.9.07 @ 9:37PM|#
One other thing, the ACLU makes no distinction between private behavior and government behavior that I'm aware of. It sees no difference between Hooters discriminating against men in it's hiring practices and the government enacting legislation prohibiting men from working at Hooters. Same, Same.
|3.9.07 @ 9:48PM|#
And if Hillary wins too, it'll be an all-NY
election.
Except of course for the fact that Hillary isn't from NY, and only
represents us in the Senate because the seat happened to be open in
2000. Not that we're incapable of producing homegrown statists
(Giuliani, Schumer, Cuomo, Spitzer, etc), but at least they're OUR
statists!
|3.9.07 @ 9:52PM|#
Kwix,
The NRA does not take an official position on anything other than
firearms and hunting issues. It seems reasonable to restrict
firearms ownership by felons; that our legislators have classified
drug users and prostitutes as felons cannot be laid at the feet of
the NRA.
|3.9.07 @ 9:56PM|#
BTW, for all those freaking out that Reason doesn't have a post about today's gun ruling: I'm on the NRA email list, and have gotten two emails from them today about new stuff at the NRA online store and an endorsed life insurance company--but nothing about the District Court ruling. Go figure.
|3.9.07 @ 10:13PM|#
joe-
Every time someone notices that Catholics don't vote the way
the bishops tell them to, Tom Donoghue gets a shooting pain in his
left temple.
This Tom Donoghue? (I
think you meant to say Bill
Donohue)...
(given your apparent lack of ability to accurately propagate the
leftist narrative, you should expect to be 'excommunicated'
shortly...) :o)
|3.9.07 @ 11:20PM|#
Every time someone notices that Catholics don't vote the way
the bishops tell them to, Tom Donoghue gets a shooting pain in his
left temple.
The bishops don't tell Catholics who to vote for, though that's
probably less a matter of principle than a matter of protecting the
Church's tax exemption.
But I wonder, are you encouraging people to vote for candidates
supporting the Iraq war and the death penalty (both of which are
opposed by the US bishops)?
|3.9.07 @ 11:29PM|#
Also, keep in mind that today's 2nd Ammendment ruling was by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, not the full Court. It may yet be reversed by the full Court of Appeals and never make it to SCOTUS.
|3.10.07 @ 4:52AM|#
So,
Is it looking like the least painful candidate is Obama?
I mean, I will be supporting Ron Paul in the primaries, but when it
comes down to it, who's to hope for?
|3.10.07 @ 6:55AM|#
Is it looking like the least painful candidate is
Obama?
Obama has a more pleasing personality, but does anyone here
seriously think he isn't worse on (to pick two issues at random)
gun rights and taxes than Giuliani or McCain?
|3.10.07 @ 7:58AM|#
RC,
He's definitely better (for me, not for you) on the Iraq war,
though hopefully that'll be a moot issue by the time of the general
election. Giuliani's gun rights record isn't much better than
Obama's or Hillary's. Taxes I'm not sure about -- McCain is big on
national sacrifice, after all.
This is the most vomitous slate of candidates I've seen during my
voting career.
|3.10.07 @ 9:33AM|#
"The bishops don't tell Catholics who to vote for, though that's
probably less a matter of principle than a matter of protecting the
Church's tax exemption."
Bullshit. They denounce particular candidates, loudly announce that
the positions they hold go against Catholic teaching, and tell the
laity to vote according to Catholic teaching.
"But I wonder, are you encouraging people to vote for candidates
supporting the Iraq war and the death penalty (both of which are
opposed by the US bishops)?" No, I'm reporting on how the Church's
heirarchy behaves during election season. Though it is worth
noticing, the Church makes much less noise about those issues and
others that would encourage a vote for Democrats than the "family
values" issues that favor Republicans.
|3.10.07 @ 10:33AM|#
Being Roman Catholic (hummbly, as I say), The US Bishops and the
Holy Sea are divied on pretty much everything. The US Bishops, like
the Jesuits are trying to undoe everything the Vatican says to do.
It's rather depressing and disturbing.Like most leftist, the US
Bishops want their cake and to eat it to. Like most (not all) Roman
Catholics, the US Bishops do not speak for me.
And for Rudy, I'm not voting for him simply because I don't agree
with the majority of his views.
Oh, and for the ones who on here who say a lot of Catholics don't
follow Catholic doctrine anymore, are saddly mistaken. Just because
the majority of Catholics in congress and here in the states say
one thing, and do another. Does not mean we are all like that.
|3.10.07 @ 7:35PM|#
1. It's "Holy See."
2. Google "polls Catholics church teachings"
The numbers don't lie.
|3.10.07 @ 11:53PM|#
Is it looking like the least painful candidate is
Obama?
You people amaze me.
Obama is a liberal's liberal. And not even a Bill Clinton type
third wayer. He's a throw back to the Jimmy Carter days. Government
as a means to create heaven on earth, micromanaging of personal
behavior, all the nonsense.
Even if you didn't like any of the Republican candidates calling
Obama the least offsenive in the field is nutty.
|3.12.07 @ 12:25AM|#
The Second Amendment doesn't say what a lot of you people seem to think it says.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245