Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
From the lede of a story at Politico today:
Former New York City Mayor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said Thursday evening that he was concerned that Republican stances on social issues makes the GOP look “like it isn’t a modern party.”
“I think the biggest problem right now, I think abortion you can work out… but I think the gay rights issue is a more current one right now. I think beyond all the religious and social parts, it makes the party look like it isn’t a modern party, it doesn’t understand the modern world we live in,” Giuliani said on CNN’s “OutFront.”
“Absolutely,” Giuliani added, when host Erin Burnett asked if the Republican Party’s positions on social issues could lead to the rise of a third party.
As we've seen from any number of threads on Ricochet in the past, these questions are just as divisive here as anywhere else. So here's my challenge to the membership: put aside the normative questions for a moment. As a matter of sheer political calculation, is Giuliani right or wrong about the electoral wages of social conservatism?
- Comment (199)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
The Roman Empire was very modern too, just before it fell.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 6:55pmDec '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Would we rather lose with the truth or win with a lie? That is the real question. What I wrote on another topic:
Jul '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
He is not correct that social issues could give rise to a third party. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal Americans seem perfectly happy labeling themselves independent and not worrying about what party to support.
That said, Mayor Giuliani is absolutely right in his assessment of how the ongoing culture war is making the Republicans look to social liberals. Foreign policy and economics can be logically argued and independents can be swayed. Morals, values and beliefs, on the other hand, are rarely engendered in an individual through a logical thought process. So people tend to be much more staunch in their moral views and thus their view of what role government should play in such social questions as gay marriage and abortion.
This is why I hold that Rick Santorum will not only be an ineffective presidential candidate, but is already hurting the party. Social issues will not turn one independent. He has shown no ability to convince any voter of the superiority of his beliefs.
Mitch had it right. A temporary truce is necessary on social issues until we win this election and fix our economy.
Dec '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Its the same old problem the right has had since Reagan left office; the inability to articulate their ideas to people who don't share their preconceptions.
Economics, Abortion, whatever. The vast majority of Republican leaders can't speak to the issue in a way that independents will give the time of day. Until that happens, Social Truce or no Social Truce, Republicans are always going to seem "regressive".
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 7:07pmMay '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Conservatives are less concerned with being modern than they are with being in accord with reality.
Nov '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
And yes, I know this is contentious
He's right about gay rights. It's our present day civil rights battle. And yeah, it does make the Republican party look backward.
Look, sometimes Conservatives are on the wrong side of things. They were on the wrong side of things last time too.
May '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
I could not disagree more. The Obama administration has handed the right a golden opportunity with its recent aggressions in the area of "social values". We would be making a huge mistake, not just in the long term, but in the campaign, not to take full advantage it.
The media will pretend the economy is improving under Obama. They can't pretend he's not aggressively attacking our churches and individuals on conscience issues.
May '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
I am sure that he knows from where he speaks. After all, this is the man that so connected with the American people that he was declared the nominee of the party almost by acclamation just four short years ago...
Oh, wait. Let me start again...
Political parties and movements can only exist for one of two reasons. First, it is to fight for the beliefs that the people involved think will create the type of society they want to live in and leave to posterity. The other reason is to simply wield power so that you and yours can claim whatever piece of the spoils you can get.
Mr. Guiliani wishes to have the latter, rather than the former. Or maybe he's just in the wrong party.
May '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Fred Cole: And yes, I know this is contentious
He's right about gay rights. It's our present day civil rights battle. And yeah, itdoesmake the Republican party look backward.
It is our present day civil rights battle. And those standing up for traditional marriage are in the place of the abolitionists.
Jan '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Does anyone here think that in 10 years gay marriage will not be legal in the US?
May '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Nyadnar17: Its the same old problem the right has had since Reagan left office; the inability to articulate their ideas to people who don't share their preconceptions.
Economics, Abortion, whatever. The vast majority of Republican leaders can't speak to the issue in a way that independents will give the time of day. Until that happens, Social Truce or no Social Truce, Republicans are always going to seem "regressive". · 5 minutes ago
Edited 4 minutes ago
Consider. Since the end of Jim Crow there has been almost perfect consensus. Same with end of slavery. Why? Because those decisions were morally sound and in accord with our founding principles and values.
The legalization of abortion is not morally sound, not in accord with our founding principles and values. Therefore, we will never be able to "rest easy" with that decision. The same will go for gay marriage.
Truth and right have a unifying power that error and wrong lack.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 7:25pmFeb '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Abolitionists were wanting to change past discriminatory practices, I don't think that is analagous to those who want to maintain past discriminatory practices of denying marriage to same sex couples.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 7:16pmSep '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
President Obama can't openly support the re-definition of marriage. Everyone seems to agree that this is for electoral purposes.
May '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
I think if Rick Santorum wins, it will not be. If Obama wins, it will be. If Romney wins, it might take a few years longer.
Whenever it comes, if ever it comes, it will be a disaster.
Dec '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
The problem is that fiscal conservatives are holding back social conservatives. Fiscal conservatives dont even believe in fiscal conservativism, when its their cheese on the block. This has been demonstrated time and time again. Whereas you cannot win national office or many statewide offices on a socially liberal platform. Social conservatism when tied to something of a spendthrift wins time and time again. Even Barrack Obama ran on the fiscal liberal, socially conservativish platform.
The simple truth is that upsetting the social apple cart is not appreciated. Mothers want to take their kids to the store, and people want to drive their grandma to church without being scared or embarassed at what is going on around them. Nobody likes being trolled in real life.
People like their government spending programs and a stable social environment. Until this dynamic changes, you will lose an election faster based on cutting popular spending than you will by being against gay marriage.
This new party will instantly become irrelevant because nobody actually believes it.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 7:19pmMay '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
It depends on which side gets the use of the name "United States" after we split up into multiple countries...
Jun '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
I have no doubt it will be legal. It might be preferred. The question is, will Catholic priests be able to perform any marriages at all, if they also refuse to perform gay marriages? Will they get sued for discrimination?
Jan '12
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
I can't cite statistics, but reading the tea leaves, I'd say that there is a large group of people who are fiscally conservative--they understand the consequences of massive debt--and, while not living unconventional life-styles themselves, are persuaded by libertarian arguments and just don't want the power of government to be increased by being channeled into social crusades. They are enough, I suspect, to invite a third-party effort.
It's interesting that Newt probably shares Santorum's moral opinions; he too, after all, is a Catholic. But put aside his other problems; Newt doesn't scare people on this score because he places his passion in saving the country from debt and foreign fanatics, not from libertines. When he mentions the Church, it is to defend its rights under the First Amendment. True, he has strong statements about judges who want to outlaw all expressions of religious sentiment in government institutions, but he has been quiet on what happens in the privacy of one's home.
If, per impossibile, he won the nomination, it wouldn't give rise to a third party.
May '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
ultra vires: Abolitionists were wanting to change past discriminatory practices, I don't think that is analagous to those who want to maintain past discriminatory practices of denying marriage to same sex couples. · 2 minutes ago
Edited 2 minutes ago
The essence of the rightness of the abolitionists was their insistence on natural rights. They refused to buckle under intense social pressure to disregard the human rights and dignity of blacks. They were willing to be mocked and despised. Willing to stand for what was true, no matter the cost.
The essence of the rightness of those defending traditional marriage is in their insistence on the natural rights and dignity of marriage as a unique institution that transcends the authority of the state.
They will keep standing for it, come what may.
Aug '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
I don't think that making this thread solely about gay marriage will be a fruitful discussion.
I for one believe that we have hit a point where the State should stay completely out of the private/religious sphere. Marriage is a sacrament that is performed by religious institutions. It is a sacred bond. The State has no business telling people who they can or cannot marry, nor do they have the right to tell people with whom they can cohabit or enter into binding fiscal contracts.
The thing is that if we concede that the State has the power to define marriage, we concede to the State that it has the power to define marriage. I do not want that.
The State should stay out of the social engineering business. Let us enter into legal bonds with those we choose to in courts through legal proceedings.
Let us marry according to the rules of our faiths.
The fact that we can even think of same sex marriage being anywhere near as important as the killing of millions of children is mind-boggling to me.