More On Rudy's Federalism Dodge
Andrew Sullivan implies that we take issue with federalism. Certainly not. There are certainly a great many questions, most of them cultural and provincial, that are best decided by state and local governments. And Rudy Giuliani might even be correct, in an ultimate sense, that the topics he’s been confronted with are best deliberated and adjudicated by state legislatures.
We’re a politics blog, and so we’re making a political point.
Giuliani is also deliberately using federalism as a cover to avoid having to reveal his personal opinion about topics of longstanding cultural controversy.
It’s one thing to say that the topics of slavery apologies, or gun control, or even abortion, are best handled stateside. But saying so does not magically obliterate a presidential candidate’s duty to explain why said issue is best grappled with by the states, and most importantly it is no excuse whatsoever for the candidate not to give his personal opinion. Personal sentiments are vital clues to character. And Rudy’s candidacy is predicated on characterological attributes: his force of will, his personal tolerance, his candor, his strength of convinction, and his leadership abilities.
By scooping up so many issues into his state right’s satchel, Giuliani dodges his responsibility as a presidential candidate to explain to the electorate why he believes that the right to abortion is not absolute, or why he believes that states can fly the Confederate Flag, or whether he believes that, as abhorrent a symbol as that flag may have become, states certainly have the “right” to fly it. That last example is instructive. No one we know of has ever asserted that Congress should ban the Confederate Flag. It is a dodge – a plain dodge – to simply say that it’s a state’s rights issue. No one disputes that. Rudy has decided he does not need to tell Alabamans whether he personally endorses the idea.
In 2000, John McCain was asked about the flag in South Carolina. In a thin voice, he proceeded to tell reporters that it was a state issue and he wouldn’t get involved. McCain now admits that he was intellectually dishonest. There was never any doubt that South Carolina had the right to fly the flag, but by omitting his personal opinion, McCain avoid the political consequences of acknowledging that the flag evoked very painful and even hurtful feelings in black South Carolinians.
Give Mitt Romney credit. In 2002, he told Massachusetts residents that while he personally was pro-life, but he said he recognized that both the law and the state’s cultural habits would not countenance any significant changes to abortion law. (Disregard, for the sake of this argument, anything else you’ve read about Romney and abortion).
By not saying something like
I think the flag is divisive, and I don’t like it. But Alabamans can do what they want.
And instead saying only “Alabama should do what it wants,” Giuliani implies that each side’s arguments have equal merit – which, in an of itself, is a moral judgment whether Giuliani realizes it or not. [MARC AMBINDER]
Yeah, this is what's really getting to me about Rudy. I originally supported the guy because of all those character traits he projected. But now, I see he doesn't have vision or moral fiber. You can't run your entire platform on cleaning up after 9/11. He provided a great service then, but if his entire candicacy is running on the conviction that arose out of 9/11 that we need to "fight" the terrorists, then it's not enough for me. What George Bush has neglected to realize during his entire presidency is that in addition to mismanaging a war that has been his ENTIRE focus, he is also running a country (or failing to).
C'mon Rudy, REALLY stick to your convictions, don't just pretend to when you have no defense 'cause it's on youtube for all to see. EXPLAIN your convictions. Otherwise, it's gonna sound like pandering and hollowness. Force of personality means nothing if there's no inner moral compass there. Force of personality means nothing if it's just used to buck people up in a crisis or to assert who's boss. You're good in a crisis BECAUSE you like to be boss. But that's NOT ENOUGH. Show us there is.
And learn some facts about world politics and policy. You're very thin/weak on those, and sorry, travelling to 40 countries does not make you an expert.
An indication of a good leader is somebody who is able to MANAGE people (which is done with diplomacy both political and interpersonal), not just intimidate them into submission or ignore them if they don't agree with you. The world hates us. We need to realize that we exist within the world context. I don't think you do. It's a failing of many americans, and an understandable one given our geographical isolation, but eventually that bubble is going to burst. That's what 9/11 should have told us. But it didn't. I don't want another 9/11. I'm afraid, with the direction George Bush has taken, we will.
But maybe that's what you want. After all, you are so good in a crisis. And that's what I'm afraid of. Convince me I'm wrong. For a start, you can stop being vague about your positions. Put meat behind the words.Stand behind all of them, not just the ones you can't back out of because they've been captured on video.
Are you joking by calling Rudy a strong leader. Remember Bernie Kerik? Remember how he ignored fire fighters during WTC cleanup process? Now its reported that Rudy is being advised on Iraq by none other than John Bolton who was even ignored by Bush.
By the way a leader leads from the front by expressing personal opinion, he does not hide behind "state issue" facade.
Giving Romney the credit for abortion stance is another joke. The flip-flopper has changed his positions so many times that he is more than mutiple choice Mitt. He was telling one thing to pro-choice groups and another thing to anti-choice groups. None of the statements uttered by Mitt have any cerdibility.
I understand Ambinder's point, but I'm still uncomfortable with the fact that we expect political candidates to pass moral judgment on everything under the sun, regardless of whether the issue is something that they would even have any purview over in office.
"What do you think of people who fly the Confederate flag?" "Do you think Don Imus should be fired from his job?" These questions are asked as a way of playing "gotcha", and don't have much to do with what a president would do in office. How far do we go with this? Should we ask every presidential candidate to explain in detail what his or her religious beliefs are?
If you don't think an issue should be handled by the federal government, then I don't see why you should be asked to comment on how you would deal with the issue if you *did* think it should be handled by the federal government. It's as if we're asking the federal government to pass moral judgment on every possible activity in the country, whether they regulate it or not.
I'm not sure you understand Mitt Romney's position on abortion. He was, is, and always will be pro-life. As governor of Massachussettes he had the responsibility to represent the people of that state. They wanted abortion to remain legal and at the descretion of the mother. Although he does not support abortion and never has, he did not seek to change the laws of massachessettes becasue he wanted to perform his number one duty as governor, which is to represent the people, to the best of his abilities.We do not elect kings and nobles to office we elect "representatives" and executives that manage our government, which government is by the people "for the people". A politicians personal views are not the only influence that affects their decision making process. They should first and foremost look at how their decisions correspond to the public opinion and interests of their constituents. Why is that so hard for some of you to grasp.
I agree with Chris S. I don't need to know what Giuliani or any candidate thinks about every issue under the sun, since it's not part of the job description to deal with every issue under the sun. We have this tendency to site the presidency with a lot of our magical political thinking; no wonder every man to hold the office has been a letdown in one way or another. We're hiring a chief executive, not a monarch. I'd think that those objecting to the Bush's totalist tendencies would be happy to see someone who seems to think it's OK to butt out of areas that don't and won't concern him.
Maybe Rudy just doesn't care about this kind of stuff. Which, I suppose, is your point.
Dig this: Rudy's running for president on a platform that says that he really, really cares about killing terrorists, reducing federal spending, maintaining law and order, and keeping taxes low. As for all the rest, he says, "That's between y'all. I don't want to think about it."
Funny thing is, the "I don't want to think about it" posture reflects the attitude of many, many Americans--maybe a majority. Keep me safe, they say. Keep my taxes low, they say. But don't bum me out with all of this talk about slavery and flags and abortion and gay rights and Kansas-Nebraska and all that. I don't care.
Any politician who doesn't understand how little use presenting his personal opinion on a hotly contested issue carries, especially if that opinion is not happily conformed to a realistic compromise, is one whose ego is a positive handicap to his effective leadership.