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:
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Troy, I don't think he's right, even as a matter of sheer political calculation. All 31 States to vote on the issue have opted to retain the traditional definition of marriage. When the cameras were rolling in 2008, Obama refused to endorse gay marriage. I find it hard to believe that opposition to gay marriage is an obstacle to electoral success.
On the National level, I do think it's important for conservatives to portray this as a federalism issue. The fact is that the federal government should never have to reach the merits of abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, etc. But an activist judiciary has federalized these issues. I would not endorse a federal marriage amendment, for example, because it would further aggrandize the federal government as the arbiter of marriage. Return these issues to the people and the legislatures of the States and you will get conservative results.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 7:27pmMay '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
The social crusading is coming from the left. Our choice is to fight it, or surrender.
May '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Nathaniel Wright: 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.
That it's sacred does not mean it has no social value and is not part of the common good. It is, in fact, the foundation of the common good.
Hack away at that and down comes the rest.
Governments are responsible to recognize marriage; they do not create it; they have no authority to change what it is, nor to demand that other relationships be treated as identical to it when they're not.
Apr '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Without a doubt, if you have to bet the farm, you bet that it will be legal. The cultural left will continue assaulting and destroying every important social institution in the country until there are none left recognizable and the Leviathan rules without significant opposition (see Europe). Sooner or later enough judges will concern themselves with seeming "modern" that they will impose gay marriage by judicial fiat, just as they imposed abortion on demand.
As to the broader point, I do not agree that social conservatism necessarily kills Republican chances at the ballot box. But clearly the message needs a better messenger than Mr. Santorum.
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
I'm afraid I can't see the relevance of this statement. Abortion on demand has been "legal" since 1973. Not a good reason, in my opinion, for conservatives to capitulate on abortion. There are times when conservatives must stand athwart history, yelling "stop," to quote William F. Buckley.
Apr '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
I think Guliani is right that Conservative views on certain social issues will eventually hurt our political chances. Let us face the facts here with the exception of abortion where the arguments for limiting it are very strong and based squarely on an expansion of a basic human right, agreed to by all, the right of humans to live and not be harmed.
Arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage are not based on our societies understanding of basic human rights. They are based on the cultural norms of the past and an understanding of human sexuality, based on religious teachings. The problem is the basis for the logic of opposing gay marriage is no longer shared by all Americans. Thus to argue against gay marriage social cons have to appeal to an intellectual foundation no longer universally held.
This makes them look arbitrary and fuels they idea that what conservatives want is to force everyone to live by their standards. Social Cons can not win these arguments politically. If they try they will loose because the culture has shifted, and the new culture will enshrine its values through political action, as it always happens.
Feb '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
katievs
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 ofmarriageas a unique institution that transcends the authority of the state.
They will keep standing for it, come what may. · 12 minutes ago
But who's understanding of nature are those defending traditional marriage following. The abolitionists were in lock-step with libertarian thinkers such as Locke, who advocated individual liberty for all; while modern defenders of traditional marriage seem to be more in line with Aristotle's defense of slavery, as a dictate of nature.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 7:42pmMay '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Valiuth:
Arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage are not based on our societies understanding of basic human rights. They are based on the cultural norms of the past and an understanding of human sexuality, based on religious teachings. The problem is the basis for the logic of opposing gay marriage is no longer shared by all Americans. Thus to argue against gay marriage social cons have to appeal to an intellectual foundation no longer universally held.
Wrong. The argument against gay marriage is grounded in nature. Individual rights are grounded in nature. The rights and duties pertaining to marriage are too, viz. our nature as male and female whose sexual union engenders children.
They are also grounded in tradition and common sense, and in an intelligent concern for the common good.
Nov '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
katievs
The essence of the rightness of those defending traditional marriage is in their insistence on the natural rights and dignity ofmarriageas a unique institution that transcends the authority of the state.
All the more reason to end all state involvement in marriage and let people privately contract as they wish.
Aug '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Katievs,
I deeply respect what you are saying, but I disagree that governments have a responsibility to recognize marriage. Governments exist for a very narrow purpose. The only role the government has is do aid in the division of property and the enforcement of legal contracts by which people are allowed to make decisions for one another as agents.
The moment we concede to the State the ability to recognize marriage and provide a definition for it, we concede that they can change that definition. That is necessary in a Democracy for the laws are fluid and representative of the will of the people.
Certainly, we can fight for what is right and for our Rights, but so long as the State doesn't sue churches for not performing what it defines as marriage I do not care.
The President already proposes punishing people for marrying through his proposed tax increases. $200k for individuals and $250k for married couples. That's a $150k disincentive against marriage for upper middle class families.
I want to keep the sacred out of the commons if I can. We should never have let it in.
Dec '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
We only look arbitrary if we acquiesce to the left's assertion that gay marriage is a question of equality rather than debating the more proper question of "what is marriage?"
Jan '12
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
katievs
The social crusading is coming from the left. Our choice is to fight it, or surrender. · 3 minutes ago
I understand why you say this. There is much militancy coming from the courts and from the Pelosis of the world, but libertarians do not think of themselves, at least, as leftists.
May I also suggest that there are different ways of fighting? Effective generals master both strategy and tactics, learn how to prepare the battle space, guage when to advance and, without surrendering, when to make a temporary strategic retreat. It's a complicated business, requiring prudence as well as dedication. And, yes, opinions differ about how best to do it.
Whether there might room for a third party forming between what is commonly understood as the left and the right is an open question, but strong exhibitions of what a large segment of the population take as crusading zeal increase the chances.
Nov '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
The premise assume modernity is always correct.
I am reminded of something very ancient indeed: "Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, But happy is he who keeps the law."
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
If you mean that these arguments are based solely on our peculiar traditions and on Christianity or Christianity and Judaism, you are wrong. Marriage, sanctioned by the political community, has existed in every civilized society that ever existed. I know of only one such society -- ancient Greek society -- that sanctioned homosexuality, and I have spent a lifetime studying it. In that society, which was neither Jewish nor Christian, marriage was a politically sanctioned institution uniting a man with a woman, and its rationale was not religious in the slightest. And strangely enough that same rationale is the one that explains why modern political communities sanction marriage, and guess what: it has nothing to do with sexual pleasure or even romantic love. Can you guess what it is?
Apr '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
This idea that "fiscal" conservatism and "social" conservatism can be separated is really kind of silly. The breakdown of the family, which is the primary concern of social conservatives, makes limited government and fiscal responsibility impossible.
The left never debates this, because they understand how linked the two are.
May '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
ultra vires
Edited 0 minutes agoBut who's understanding of nature are those defending traditional marriage following.
This is rhetorical question is rank with relativistic and subjectivistic tendencies, I hope you realize. "What is truth?" "Whose truth?"—as if such truths can't be perceived with reason. As if moral truth is just a matter of opinion. How do we know that honor killings are immoral?
The abolitionist were not "in lock step" with libertarians. They were mostly Quakers and other Christians. They and libertarians held certain views in common, as do libertarians and Christians today.
Marriage is not an individual right. It is, by its nature, a social institution, and as such involves its own set of rights and duties.
Oct '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Well, with that attidute it will be. Talk about fatalism. Sounds like you need to decide what you think is right and good, and then fight for it.
I think gay marriage absolutely WILL NOT be legalized nationwide. Moral decay is not inevitable, and people inherently understand the unique nature of marriage. But if I'm wrong, that doesn't mean people who opposed gay marriage will have been wrong to do so. Right is right, even if no one agrees with it.
katievs
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. · 23 minutes ago
Ditto. Total disaster. But NOT an inevitable one.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 7:58pmMay '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Nathaniel Wright:
I deeply respect what you are saying, but I disagree that governments have a responsibility to recognize marriage. Governments exist for a very narrow purpose. The only role the government has is do aid in the division of property and the enforcement of legal contracts by which people are allowed to make decisions for one another as agents.
That's the libertarian view of government. It's not my view. It's not the conservative view.
Feb '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Paul A. Rahe
In that society, which was neither Jewish nor Christian, marriage was a politically sanctioned institution uniting a man with a woman, and its rationale was not religious in the slightest. And strangely enough that same rationale is the one that explains why modern political communities sanction marriage, and guess what: it has nothing to do with sexual pleasure or even romantic love. Can you guess what it is? · 0 minutes ago
Professor Rahe, I believe it was probably for procreation, and I agree that procreation is a worthy goal. But short of instituting a requirement that the State test to make sure couples are fertile prior to marriage, marriage is not narrowly tailored to achieving procreation. Today marriage is seen as a vow between two people to love and cherish one another regardless of their ability to raise, or birth, children; and the way I look at it, same sex couples could really help with the adoption rate. Could they not?
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
I am not surprised in the slightest at Giuliani's comments. They reflect a parochial perspective. There are two counties in the United States with dramatically lower birthrates than are found elsewhere. One is the site of a leper colony in Hawaii. The other one is the site of Giuliani's home. It is no surprise that in such a place people would lose all understanding of what marriage is and of what it is for.