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:
Dec '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Marriage is not a private relationship. If it were there would be no church ceremonies or justices of the peace bestowing a ceremony. A marriage is a recognition, sanction, blessing by the community upon a relationship. Sorry but the community gets to decide amongst itself about to whom they decide to bestow this public recognition, blessing, and sanction onto. Nobody has a right to this blessing, sanction, or recognition.
May '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Humza Ahmad
Focusing on social issues to the extent that Santorum has is a losing strategy in this general election.
First, I don't agree that he's focusing on the social issues. He's baited on them constantly by the media, but they are not his focus. His focus is on restoring America's promise and prosperity.
Secondly, I don't agree that the social issues are losers in an election. For every Republican who's so turned off by Santorum's religious and moral values that they'd rather see Obama win, I'll bet there's at least one Democrat who will find his message and his values appealing enough to make them switch sides this time around, as they did for the ardently pro-life Reagan.
Thirdly, I don't agree that they're not urgent. They are so urgent that if we don't fight with everything we have now, this election, we will lose on that front, and all our efforts on the other front will be undone.
All the sound fiscal policies in the world won't suffice to make a prosperous society out of a generation raised in dysfunction.
Jan '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
I'm not sure I understand this argument. If the community gets to decide who, why not on the when, where, how? Can the community decide whether the couple has children, if procreation is the purpose of marriage?
Feb '12
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Valiuth
As to the devastating nature of lacking one of the biological parents, do you have proof that children raised by a homosexual couples, committed to raising the child to be a good member of society, will still be more at risk than if his parents where heterosexual. I can see how having only one parent to raise a child could lead to short falls more often, but I don't see the evidence for favoring one man and one woman over two men or two women. · 1 minute ago
If you want to learn what that evidence is, I recommend reading some books or articles in favor of marriage. An excellent work is Fatherless America. You could also look at the more recent book, Marriage and Caste in America (chapter two is particularly relevant, but the whole book is important).
Dec '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Tristan Abbey
What about same-sex civil unions? Preserves marriage as a public institution, easy way of facilitating rights and obligations for relationships that de facto exist already.... · 4 minutes ago
We tried that compromise in Wa with the "everything but marriage" amendment. Last week the governor signed gay marriage into law. It's the ratchet effect.
Jan '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
katievs
First, I don't agree that he's focusing on the social issues. He's baited on them constantly by the media, but they are not his focus. His focus is on restoring America's promise and prosperity.
Agree with Katievs here. To quote Ricochet's own Mike Murphy:
Feb '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Leporello
We can throw out quotes we've picked up in five minutes of searching, and ensure that we will not understand Aristotle. Or we can try to learn something.
You should study that passage from The Politics carefully. What does he cite as an example of male intellect? Isn't it Ajax from the Iliad? But isn't that particular part of the Iliad about Ajax's madness? What is Aristotle suggesting by citing to a passage that goes directly counter to his argument? · 8 minutes ago
I was merely throwing those out to give an easy access to Aristotle's arguments for those who do not own Aristotle. As to your argument about Aristotle citing counter reasons for ruling, I understand your point; men rule arguable through spiritedness while the opposite is used to justify the rule of slaveowners. My point was not to argue about his contradictory justifications and the reason for why one class of people should rule another, rather I reject both his arguments that either class should rule and I submit to you his understanding of nature is improper; the state should not be used to correct any "deficiencies" in society.
Jun '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. · 56 minutes ago
If you want to go all theological... in Romans 2:14-15 Paul writes:
The point of this passage is that we don't need God's revealed will to know right from wrong, because God's laws are also written on our hearts. When we "do by nature things required by the law" we are obeying the natural law.
May '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Tristan Abbey
katievs
Your letting your truculence lose again, Fred.
The whole point is that marriage is not "a private affair." It's a public institution that serves the common good.
What about same-sex civil unions? Preserves marriage as a public institution, easy way of facilitating rights and obligations for relationships that de facto exist already.... · 6 minutes ago
Why should the state recognize a same sex relationship? What interest does the state have in so doing?
Why should the state privilege a sexual relationship between two men over the relationship between two sisters who live together, or two bachelors who live together as devoted friends?
I do not argue that the state should make it its business to end all sexual relations that are not marriage. I say rather that there is only one form of sexual relation that it ought to recognize and privilege in law.
Dec '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Leporello
Valiuth
As to the devastating nature of lacking one of the biological parents, do you have proof that children raised by a homosexual couples, committed to raising the child to be a good member of society, will still be more at risk than if his parents where heterosexual. I can see how having only one parent to raise a child could lead to short falls more often, but I don't see the evidence for favoring one man and one woman over two men or two women. · 1 minute ago
If you want to learn what that evidence is, I recommend reading some books or articles in favor of marriage. An excellent work is Fatherless America. You could also look at the more recent book, Marriage and Caste in America (chapter two is particularly relevant, but the whole book is important). · 1 minute ago
Also, anything from Maggie Gallagher is worth reading.
Feb '12
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
The King Prawn
Also, anything from Maggie Gallagher is worth reading.
Yes, indeed! Thank you for the reminder. I need to read more of her work.
Feb '12
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
ultra vires
Leporello
You should study that passage from The Politics carefully. What does he cite as an example of male intellect? Isn't it Ajax from the Iliad? But isn't that particular part of the Iliad about Ajax's madness? What is Aristotle suggesting by citing to a passage that goes directly counter to his argument? · 8 minutes ago
I was merely throwing those out to give an easy access to Aristotle's arguments for those who do not own Aristotle. As to your argument about Aristotle citing counter reasons for ruling, I understand your point; men rule arguable through spiritedness while the opposite is used to justify the rule of slaveowners.
OK.
My point is that Aristotle sugested by his citation to the Iliad that his statement about men and women was actually insincere. He didn't mean that men possess reason and women lack it. If someone says that men possess reason, and then cites to a famous example of a madman for support, one has to ask oneself whether he might be making a different point than the apparent one, a point that might not have been easily accepted by the men of his day.
Jun '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Humza Ahmad
Focusing on social issues to the extent that Santorum has is a losing strategy in this general election. Do you guys really want another 4 years of Obama?
My point is that if we can put a few important but not urgent issues to the side until a conservative is in office and we have our economic house in order, we will be better off for it. · 27 minutes ago
But you're fooling yourself if you think that moderate voters agree with us on the fiscal issues and the social issues are the only thing standing in the way of a landslide GOP victory. Take for instance this poll from last August:
In order to reduce the deficit 63% supported "Increases in taxes on businesses and higher-income Americans" while only 35% supported "Major changes to the Social Security and Medicare system."
Jan '12
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Tristan Abbey
I'm not sure I understand this argument. If the community gets to decide who, why not on the when, where, how? Can the community decide whether the couple has children, if procreation is the purpose of marriage? · 0 minutes ago
When, where, and how are much less essential to the nature of marriage, although such questions of age and formality of declaration are important. Who is indispensable.
Not every marriage results in children; that is already acknowledged as a matter of contingency. But a community has no interest in calling marriage a type of union that has no generic possibility of producing children.
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
billy:"They could -- but only if the stability of their marriages was as high as the stability of marriages contracted by those who have children."
So Prof. Rahe, a theoretical question:
Would you, in grand bargain, be willing to accept gay marriage in exchange for the end of no-fault divorce? · 2 hours ago
I, frankly, do not even know whether repealing no-fault divorce at this time would be a good idea. There is reason to think that introducing it encouraged divorce. Whether eliminating it would have a good effect I am not sure. Like Prohibition, it might backfire.
The experiment would be interesting. Would ending no-fault divorce have any effect on gay marriage?
Aug '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Ultra Vires,
One could spend a lifetime looking for someone who matched the criteria to be one of Aristotle's "natural slaves." One could argue that they don't/never have existed.
Leporello was doing you a favor in pointing you toward the fact that Aristotle, like Plato before him, is a fan of using irony in his arguments. One cannot always take Aristotle's words at face value, one must look at context and see if there is deeper meaning.
Aristotle and Plato are extremely subversive writers. One might think that you also believe that Plato was actually a fan of authoritarianism.
As for katiev's argument that I seek an amoral government -- my paraphrase not her statement. I do not seek an amoral government. Governments are amoral by their nature. Only the people within them are moral or immoral. They will seek to use the coercive power of the State for their own ends, often creating tyranny.
It is as possible to create tyranny in the pursuit of moral good as it is in the pursuit of moral ill. That is why I oppose Progressives. They seek to use the power of the State to advance "moral" ends.
Apr '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
katievs
The whole point is that marriage is not "a private affair." It's a public institution that serves the common good. · 4 minutes ago
So does religion. Yet, I and many people on Ricochet want less governmental intrusion into that institution. The simple fact is government should not decide who is or is not married, or deny any one the use of that term.
The problem is you have already lost the battle over the definition of what marriage is. This loss was due to a move towards greater autonomy in matters of relationships based on freedom thought and autonomy. People no longer needed permission to marry, they could not be forced to marry against their will, etc... thus the criteria for who shall be married became consent and love...two things that homosexuals have, by virtue of being human.
You need to argue that marriage is not about Love. That is the only way to reverse any of this, but I will bet you dollars to cents that will float like a led balloon.
Mar '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Valiuth
Those principles of marriage you mention are no longer held to be true by a majority of people. The primary reason for marriage now is to publicly express love...(right or wrong, this is where we are at.)
If the original principles of marriage are so profoundly broken, why would anyone want to be a part of such an archaic, flawed institution? That seems rather pre-modern and quaint, to me.
And I'm also curious why fans of smaller government would require government sanction to legitimize their life-style choices? Do they really expect that to raise the stature of their relationships in society?
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Conflation? Consider the words uttered in ancient Greece and Rome when a father married his daughter to a man: "I give you this woman for the procreation of legitimate children."
Dec '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Tristan Abbey
I'm not sure I understand this argument. If the community gets to decide who, why not on the when, where, how? Can the community decide whether the couple has children, if procreation is the purpose of marriage? · 19 minutes ago
They do not get to dictate the terms of a relationship, but they can dictate the terms of which relationships will recieve their public blessing. A marriage is not a private relationship, as it explicitly seeks public approval. You can lead a private relationship every day and twice on tuesday without ever having to seek public blessing. The public gets to decide which relationships it gets to bless, and under what terms they will do so.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 10:12pm