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:
Nov '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
katievs
But what you want is not limited government, but morally neutral government, which is a recipe for social chaos. The government's first and most basic responsibility is to secure the common good. · 10 minutes ago
You need to realize three things:
1. The government's first and most basic responsibility is to keep people from clubbing eachother over the head and taking eachother's stuff.
2. Not everyone shares your evaluations about what is moral.
3. The claim that the government is responsible for securing the common good is a license for unlimited government mischief.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 8:58pmFeb '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Tristan Abbey:
Ultra -- what do you make of the argument that a) marriage underpins society; b) homosexual partnerships undermine the cogency of marriage; c) society suffers as a result; therefore, d) society should exclude homosexual partnerships from marriage? Can you isolate where the argument breaks down? · 30 minutes ago
Tristan, this is a very nice breakdown of the argument for traditional marriage; and I think you are absolutely right to ask where it breaks down. If I get any of the definitions wrong please let me know. But, I will accept marriage "underpins" society as meaning marriage is a necessary foundation for society to exist. However, that may be where the problem exists because you need to ask "why" is marriage a necessary foundation for society; and I believe it is necessary because it is a way of creating small communities - families - that foster survival, trust, and security. Accepting this justification for marriage, same-sex couples can fulfill all of those requirements with the exception of "survival" (at least through their progeny) - although they can adopt. The second proposition then survives only to the extent that we recognize marriage is for "procreation" and same-sex couples cannot procreate. [continued ...]
Feb '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
The third proposition, society suffers as a result of same-sex couples not procreating presumes, if society denies marriage to same-sex couples they will procreate in a heterosexual relationship; however, I do not think this is likely to happen and society will "suffer" the same harm if they remain outside the institution of marriage - because society will not gain any progeny through denying them access to the institution of marriage. That previous response answers the fourth proposition. But further, if the only harm to marriage is a lack of procreation and marriage between same-sex couples may promote adoption, then denying them the institution may actually harm society.
Jun '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Fred Cole
All the more reason to end all state involvement in marriage and let people privately contract as they wish. · 1 hour ago
But don't you realize that if conservatives abandon this fight that will not be the outcome?
The liberal activists pushing SSM have no desire to "end all state involvement in marriage," they want the state to license and regulate everything. In particular, they want the state involved in marriage so they can redefine it, and then use the full coercive power of the state to impose that definition on religious believers just as they are now using Obamacare to force contraception on religious believers.
Now if conservatives put up a fight and make it clear that SSM won't just sail through unopposed, then we might be able to reach some sort of compromise measure along the lines you, Tommy, and others have advocated where marriage becomes a private matter and others are not forced by the state to recognize it. But that will never happen if we just sit back and let liberal activists rewrite our marriage laws unopposed.
May '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
The King Prawn
We'd be getting theological here, but I don't think morality is all that natural either. In accord with God's revealed will, yes; in accord with the natural (unregenerate) state of humanity, no. · 13 minutes ago
Better to say in accord with the design of humanity. You don't need Revelation to perceive it. The Declaration of Independence wasn't premised on Christian Revelation, it was premised on natural law.
Jul '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
I think the fact that a bunch of avowed conservatives are going at it like cats and dogs over this is telling. Social issues in politics only cause rifts and nobody can be convinced to come to the other side.
Nov '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Tristan Abbey
Ultra -- what do you make of the argument that a) marriage underpins society; b) homosexual partnerships undermine the cogency of marriage; c) society suffers as a result; therefore, d) society should exclude homosexual partnerships from marriage? Can you isolate where the argument breaks down? · 53 minutes ago
B!
B is where it breaks down. You accept B as a given.
And D!
You'd deny people rights based on some communitarian notion of protecting "society."
Jan '12
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
katievs
...
Unless they are deliberately ordered, human impulses tend toward destruction. Anyone doubt that human sexuality dismoored from all norms and boundaries does incalculable harm to individuals and to society?
In and through the institution of marriage, human sexuality is deliberated ordered to the good of individuals and society. That's why an society that would like to prosper does well to foster a strong marriage culture.
Any society that fails to support a strong marriage culture is headed for dissolution. · 2 minutes ago
By the way, all societies, even the most primitive, have marriage customs, although some are stricter than others. Each requires some form of public recognition of who the couples are and who is responsible for the children. Furthermore, it is within the nature of man, who not only receives sensations but forms concepts, to ritualize social behavior.
Until the modern time, there was slight if any notion of marrying an individual; one married into a family or a tribe. In modern times, the focus has shifted to the individual and to his/her choice, but it would be a mistake to abstract this individual from the community, which is now the rational state.
Dec '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Joseph Stanko
Fred Cole
All the more reason to end all state involvement in marriage and let people privately contract as they wish. · 1 hour ago
But don't you realize that if conservatives abandon this fight that will not be the outcome?
Joseph, bingo!
A libertarian policy recommendation is OFTEN correct when it actively works to expand individual liberty and economic freedom.
But libertarian strategy often marginalizes the libertarian. A strict libertarian can easily come to the conclusion that voting is immoral or a waste of time, thereby removing his influence from the electorate.
A libertarian risks becoming a pacifist dependent on the willingness of others to wield a sword on his behalf.
Feb '12
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Fred Cole
katievs
Marriage is not a "private contract".
Without marriage, citizens are much more likely to end up wards of the state. Creatures of the state. At the mercy of the state.
It is absolutely a private contract and it existed that way for millenia. In the United States it wasn't until the 19th century that licenses (legal permission) was required. And that began as a mechanism for communitarian busybodies to prevent people from marrying in a way they did not approve of.
I could make a Christian argument for it too, one I wouldn't have thought of myself being an atheist:
Marriage is a contract between two people and God, so no state sanction should be required. · 16 minutes ago
Even if we throw out state sanction of marriage (and I think your history is off), the main questions remain with us - e.g., should marriage and the rearing of children by married mothers and fathers receive any privileged status (for instance, in tax and property law, and in the educational curriculum)?
Jun '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Fred Cole
katievs
But what you want is not limited government, but morally neutral government, which is a recipe for social chaos. The government's first and most basic responsibility is to secure the common good. · 10 minutes ago
3. The claim that the government is responsible for securing the common good is a license for unlimited government mischief.
· 1 minute ago
Conservatives believe the purpose of government is to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.
May '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Fred Cole
Marriage is a contract between two people and God, so no state sanction should be required. · 19 minutes ago
No state sanction is required for a marriage to be a marriage.
If Christianity were to become again an outlaw religion, so that we were forced into modern day catacombs, we could still get married down there. We could do it even without a priest, since, as you say, the marriage is enacted between the couple and God.
The reason we want the state to recognize marriage, is because it's good for us, as a people, to encourage and honor and esteem in our laws, marriage.
The reason I, personally, want state recognition of my marriage is because I want it to be publicly known and recognized that it is not just a passing liaison, but a permanent bond of love and commitment to my husband and our children.
I want my children to grow up in a society where liberty is ordered to the good.
Feb '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
katievs
We don't marry to "serve nature". Natural law is the law of man's being, and his flourishing.
We have learned through long experiences that persons and societies flourish best when they honor the institution of marriage as the permanent union of one man and one woman. · 14 minutes ago
I was actually arguing that "natural man" - man in the state of nature - might be better served if only the best and brightest procreated, not nature might be better served (sorry for the confusion).
But your argument seems to be the opposite, that man in the state of nature is better served through one man and one woman - then why have the majority of societies permitted polygamy?
Oct '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Rick Santorum may strike people as pre-modern (or just sleazy) but I don't think he represents the party as a whole. The problem with the GOP is the same problem as with the Democrats: ideological exhaustion. The arguments political activists shout past once another no longer resemble reality to the extent they once did.
This will change. Periods of intense political volatility and polarization do not last. We just have to live through it.
Feb '12
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
I think that Platonists and Aristotelians going at it like cats and dogs is telling. Philosophy only causes rifts and nobody can be convinced to come to the other side.
If we're going to throw out anything that provokes dispute, we won't stand for anything at all - except, I suppose, not fighting for anything.
Nov '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Leporello
Even if we throw out state sanction of marriage (and I think your history is off), the main questions remain with us - e.g., should marriage and the rearing of children by married mothers and fathers receive any privileged status (for instance, in tax and property law, and in the educational curriculum)? · 2 minutes ago
I could care less what people do with themselves as long as they do it peacefully.
But when we're talking about tax privileges, since (tragically) taxes in this country are compulsory, granting privileges to parents means the non parents are forced to subsudize the parents.
And I'm not particularly interested in being forced to subsidize someone else's life choices. Not would I ask them to subsidize mine.
Feb '12
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
ultra vires
katievs
We don't marry to "serve nature". Natural law is the law of man's being, and his flourishing.
We have learned through long experiences that persons and societies flourish best when they honor the institution of marriage as the permanent union of one man and one woman. · 14 minutes ag
But your argument seems to be the opposite, that man in the state of nature is better served through one man and one woman - then why have the majority of societies permitted polygamy? · 2 minutes ago
polygamy is not threatening to the purpose of marriage because it still involves inter-sexual (i.e., procreative) relations. one man and several women, or one man and one woman - the purposes of the relationship can be the same.
same-sex marriage threatens the very principle of marriage - bearing and properly rearing children. even if one member of a same-sex couple becomes pregnant, the child will never have more than one biological parent. the ill consequences from this are, statistically speaking, huge, even if not every child will suffer significantly from the arrangement.
Nov '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
katievs
The reason I, personally, want state recognition of my marriage is because I want it to be publicly known and recognized that it is not just a passing liaison, but a permanent bond of love and commitment to my husband and our children.
Gay people only ask the same thing.
May '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
This is too superficial. Great moral questions always cause rifts.
More specifically, moral evil causes rifts. We can paper it over and pretend it's not happening, or we can fight it.
Feb '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Noesis Noeseos
ultra vires
...Aristotle was the only one I know to have given a defense to the institution of slavery that is analogous to a defense of the institution of marriage.
...
Where did Aristotle say this? If so, what was the nature of the analogy? · 14 minutes ago
This article critical of Aristotle explains his defense of the institution of slavery; and this piece at Stanford explains his defense of marriage. Aristotle defended both institutions by casting slave owner and slave into different roles - one proper to rule and the other proper to serve. He then defended marriage by separating man and woman into two classes, “the courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying.”
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 9:21pm