Friggin’ Giuliani

As Paul Krugman recently noted in his New York Times column (firewalled), Republican presidential candidates are having some difficulty explaining what they will do in the unlikely event they win the presidency. So of course we can only gauge how they may lead as president with their public positions and how they have governed thus far in their careers.

Rudy Giuliani presents a particularly difficult case. Rolling Stone recently posited that he would be “worse than Bush,” but honestly no one really knows. He’s changed many of his positions enormously since his decision to run for president, and some of these could be interpreted as adapting his representation from the very liberal New York City to the relatively moderate United States. It’s possible, I suppose, but to most observers it appears hypocritical.

The one position he’s been fairly consistent on is abortion. While not liking the practice of abortion (who does?) he has defended a woman’s right to choose and even supported Clinton’s veto of the so-called “partial-birth” abortion ban. In 1989 he even said in the NYT, “There must be public funding for abortion for poor women,” and he reiterated his support this year. Later he did support the “partial-birth” ban, basing it this time on supposedly more scientific grounds. He has supported the rights of illegal immigrants, saying, “If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city.” He has opposed the death penalty, excepting extreme cases like the 9/11 hijackers, and he has been an absolutely staunch supporter of gay rights, advocating forcefully and repeatedly for civil union rights but not marriage, but he says he would oppose a federal ban on gay marriage.

This is all well and good, but it doesn’t make him a liberal or even a moderate. It merely means that he’s backing up his position that government should stay out of our personal affairs. It’s only shocking because few act on this supposedly common position. He is still very much a hawkish conservative (some even say neoconservative), and given our history with both Bushes this is particularly troubling.

During Sunday’s Republican debate (yes, there was one) he repeated his belief that government can have it both ways, by lowering taxes and thus increase federal revenue and spending. Seriously. Say what you will about Republicans who slash taxes and spending, at least that’s an ethos. This position is Lafferism even further removed from the real world and with no emphasis on an optimal taxation, simply cut and spend, cut and spend, then cut more and spend more. It’s Bushonomics Redux.

Oh, but there’s more. As Newsweek has said, he has been “one of the most consistent cheerleaders for the president’s handling of the war in Iraq,” and he has made noises toward expanding the war to Iran with his assertion that the nation took part in 9/11. He has been supportive of Bush’s “police-state” tactics such as wiretapping, and he was known for his outrageous crackdowns at the 2004 Republican convention in New York and implementation of new, suspect tools against protesters.

He is in favor of implementing voucher systems and of privatizing “under-performing” schools. He is vehemently opposed to publicly financed health care, maintaining that competition for profit is the best way to keep the nation healthy, and he is a steadfast supporter of torturing “terrorist” suspects and of the USA PATRIOT Act.

That about covers the highlights. Read more on what Giuliani stands for here and here.

Explore posts in the same categories: 2008 Elections, Economics, Education, Health Care, Immigration, Iraq War, Militarism, Neo-fascism, Protest, Republicans, Rudy Giuliani, war on terror?