Giuliani's States Rights Dodge Of The Day
Ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani has taken to using a mantra -- let states decide controversial issues -- to avoid having to voice his own opinion on said controversial issues. (The Giuliani campaign hates it when we call it a "mantra.") But here's why the dodge won't work for Giuliani.
In a liberal democracy, tolerance generally morphs into, and usually equals, assent or agreement.
By sanctioning a state's ability to decide something, Giuliani is extending the zone of what's morally permissible. One of Abraham Lincoln's chief arguments against the Kansas-Nebraska Act was that, in allowing states to decide on slavery expansion, the federal government was affirming the morality of the pro-expansion side." If slavery is morally permissible in Kansas, it's morally permissible in Nebraska, too. If not, someone had to explain why
Giuliani does not explain why New York State has a moral obligation to fund a poor woman's abortion and Oklahoma does not.
He does not explain why it is tolerable for Alabama to display the Confederate Flag, something, incidentally, it no longer does.
He does not explain, in this latest incidence, whether states are obligated to apologize for slavery, or whether they are not.
Giuliani's position on each suggests, rightly or not, that these questions remain contested and are unresolved in his mind. So -- like it or not, his federalist mantra constitutes a moral stance on these issues. [MARC AMBINDER]
Leaders lead from the front while cowards run away from the issues. Its as simple as that.
Um, since when is American federalism a dodge? Maybe Giuliani's point is that decentralization and more states rights is the bets solution to our national divisions on social issues. This, I'm sure you'll agree, is a perfectly respectable policy position. So why the heat?
Sounds like smart politics to me.
From http://www.solidpolitics.com
In a blistering editorial, the New York Times takes Rudy Giuliani to task for pandering on his campaign swing down south in Alabama earlier this week.... The Times said "the local press mocked him" and claimed unnamed Southern strategists said he couldn't win southern states because he's too moderate on abortion and other social issues.... Oh, really?.... Maybe the Times missed it, but the most recent poll in Alabama shows Giuliani with a 5-point lead; the most recent poll in South Carolina shows Rudy with a 1-point lead; and even the "rabid Republican" in North Carolina who has been "terrorizing" Elizabeth Edwards has a "Go Rudy, Go!" sign in his front yard.... Sounds like the Times, not Rudy, is out of touch with the South....
"Um, since when is American federalism a dodge? Maybe Giuliani's point is that decentralization and more states rights is the bets solution to our national divisions on social issues. This, I'm sure you'll agree, is a perfectly respectable policy position. So why the heat?"
Ambinder's argument is even more bizarre than that. He writes "In a liberal democracy, tolerance generally morphs into, and usually equals, assent or agreement".
So our elected representatives in Washington have to ban whatever behavior they personally find immoral? If they don't ban it, then they agree with it? That's a pretty odd characterization of what's supposed to happen in a liberal democracy.
There is no clear-cut moral postion on state-funded abortion. In fact, there is a major divide on this issue in America. That in itself is reason enough to leave the issue to the states rather than the Federal govenment.
I can remember a time when racially mixed marriages were considered immoral by almost everyone, but not any more. That is reason enough to leave such issues to the states, at least until we reach a cultural consensus on the issue, the point being that morality may change over the years as the cultural debate results in shedding more light and less heat on such social issues.
There will always be those who oppose abortion on moral grounds. That does not mean they should be entitled to impose their moral positions on everyone else through Federal laws, when there are sincere differences on the question of a woman's right to chose. There may be compromises that have not been considered so far, because of the extreme positions being advocated at the national level.
Giuliani's position is sound on this particular issue, and he gains points with many by not pandering to the Republican base like Romley and McCain in order to gain the nomination.
The people deserve to know where Giuliani stands on these issues. Its all well and good if he believes the states should have the final say on certain things, but where does he stand?
Re. Federalism as a dodge, I refer you to the tenth amendment of the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
No, he's just saying that once you say "it's for states to decide" then you've at least decided that it's something about which reasonable minds can disagree, and that nobody's rights are being seriously violated enough to justify making something illegal or mandatory. That's when the "what-about-slavery?" argument pops up. Few people [and no politicians] put slavery in that category; states don't get to decide, sorry. So with each issue, if you say "states should decide" then you are at least revealing a certain amount of indifference on that issue. This could anger both sides, particularly in abortion. Fun!
Sigh. It's a sad, sorry argument to conflate federalism with slavery.
The Hyde Amendment prohibits use of federal funds for abortion. Since "states rights" are bad, perhaps we should extend the Hyde Amendment to state funding?
Conservatives are for states' rights when the states adopt conservative positions, and for federal control when the conservatives are in control of the federal government and able to use it to federalize conservative positions. It's that simple.
On the other hand, Chris S., Lincoln's point about the Kansas-Nebraska Act can't be ignored. These days, more than ever, state boundaries are the least important dividers between American populations. What makes something OK in Kansas City, Missouri but not OK in KC, Kansas, other than what a bunch of yahoos in Jefferson City and Topeka do?
Federalism is a dodge, DJ, when hypocrites use it when it suits their political ends, and ditch it when it doesn't.
Whether it's the New York Times or the rest of the anti-Giuliani chorus, one thing is clear, Giuliani is hated for being an achiever while not kissing anyone's ass......
He singled handedly proves that one Man can really make a difference......this bugs alot of spineless people......
Like those that said Reagan could never be president or that he was a trigger happy cowboy-to that chorus of nay sayers-prepare to eat many meals of crow
ics payday loan
ics payday loan