Not denying former NYC mayor Giuliani certain skills at leadership and political savvy, I can only marvel at his confusing twists and turns on abortion. On the one hand, he claims that he personally "hates" the practice, while on the other, he is adamant that women should have the "right" to abort. It's not that difficult to maneuver him into an awkward position: Why should something which he believes to be morally abhorrent; the killing of an innocent child, nonetheless be protected as a "right?" There's no logical defense of his stance. He's trying desperately to master a political three-card monte. Either you believe abortion is killing or you do not. You can't straddle both positions. If you believe it is killing, how on earth can you maintain the position that it should be protected as a "right?" Is it just because the Supreme Court said so in '73? If memory serves me, the Court also issued forth some shady rulings on slavery: is it a "right" or a crime against humanity? Since when did the Supreme Court become the final arbiter on morality anyway?
Watching Giuliani's rhetorical stumble during the Republican debate was quite a sight to behold. He claims to be an advocate for federalism, suggesting that the states should be able to decide such weighty issues as abortion. But as things stand in the US, states can't decide such issues, federalism is a virtually moribund concept in American politics, and Giuliani knows that. Further tying himself into knots, Giuliani went on to say that if the court did overturn Roe v. Wade, he would be fine with the decision, but if the court upheld it, that would be okay too.
Incidentally, I've never understood those who claim that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." If there's nothing wrong with it, why should it be "rare?"
James,
ReplyDeleteYou have always been more of a politico than me, but it seems like you too are getting exasperated with the state of politics in our country . . . and when guys like you are reaching their limits it troubles me because things must be very bad.
In a sense, it seems like the lack of principles that Giuliani and other candidates from both parties demonstrate must be reflective of the state of the American mentality generally. What does America stand for these days? Who are we as a people? I am becoming increasingly a-American, by which I mean I am becoming increasingly indifferent to it--IT what IS it?
I think it was Edmund Burke that said something like all that is needed for evil to conquer is for good men to do nothing, but If I were you I'd stay in Italy.
This guy is a putz, as are the rest of the republican candidates. This country needs a change, and the question is who can step up to the plate?
ReplyDeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteCertainly don't want to give the impression that I've fallen into despair. And, as annoying as the Dems are, even Clinton would be considered a centrist candidate by European standards. Politically and culturally speaking, things are far more troubling over here. Although the recent election in France gives reason for some hope for that country. I look forward to stimulating discussions on this subject.
Granted, I'm not overly optimistic for the next election. I think it is possible that a Dem. candidate could win. But I think that the "divisions" and much talked about turmoil within Republican ranks are overplayed in the media. In fact, the GOP debates prove that, with the exception of Giuliani, the other top-tier candidates are in agreement on the important issues.
With their new majority, the Democrats are certainly feeling their oats right now. But I think they are being reckless and their antics may come back to haunt them in the future...maybe not in '08, but eventually they will. Patience. The unity of the Democrats is illusory. Let's be honest here, they won the House of Representatives because of the Foley scandal and they won the Senate (barely) because of Sen. Allen's "Macaca" quip. Contrary to Pelosi's nauseating screeds, the majority they do enjoy hardly constitutes a mandate for drastic changes. If it were, they would have little trouble overriding the president's veto. Furthermore, the Dems ran on a far more conservative agenda than they are currently pushing, now that they've won the election. They are deeply divided. The Party is being pulled further and further to the left by the radical anti-war fringe (as the comments and deeds of the majority demonstrate). Yet if they succeed with any of their legislation; a premature pullout from Iraq, cutting funds, etc., THEY will be blamed for the chaos that ensues. On the other hand, if they distance themselves too far from the left, they will alienate their base.
Clinton has a difficult balancing act to perform. She cannot express regret for her enthusiastic support of the Iraq war in '03 (so as to not appear as indecisive or flip-floppish) but at the same time, she must express her disgust with the present circumstances (to remain credible with the anti-war crowd).
Also noteworthy are the grumblings of frustration from the moveon.org crowd, who have threatened to rupture the "untiy" of the Party if it continues to follow (too closely as they see it) the Bush position on Iraq. I think they are going to struggle mightily to hold their base together.