I agree with athingortwo:
Guiliani has answered very well many of the concerns of the majority of the “Republican” (which is a misnomer) concerns of a candidate. There were things which he could have answered better, yes.
If you look at his actions, and the strategies which he used to improve the conditions of New York City, you can easily see a primarily conservative ideology there.
What did he do?
He cut taxes. His reasoning? That lower taxes would actually have the end result of increasing his budget. That lower taxes would promote investment into small businesses in New York.
Is that a Conservative or a “progressive” point of view? I would say it was Conservative.
He rigorously promoted law enforcement for all of the “little” laws; laws typically ignored by Cities with budget constraints. His reasoning?
He believed that the same people who ignore the “less important laws” are--or will become--the same people which are breaking ALL of the laws and that non-enforcement encourages lawless behavior.
Again, is that a Conservative or Progressive social theory?
The answer is: Conservative--Goldwater Conservative. It may not be a “Republican” thing, but it is a very conservative idea that every law should be enforceable and enforced, or taken off the books. “Any law which is ignored diminishes all of the rest of them, including the Constitution of These United States” is major tenet of Conservative thought; which is why “Republicanism” and “Conservatism” are two different things.
Well, what about abortion? Is the subject covered by existing Laws and Ordinances? Oh, it is? You mean he inherited them? Conservatives don’t blow off existing laws, they may seek to change them--but they do so within the constraints of the Laws themselves. Is that so hard to understand?
Is it a fact that Giulianni promoted adoption as an alternative to abortion? Yes or No? The answer was yes.
Did he encourage alternatives to abortion to be included in all funded prenatal counseling? Yes or No? The answer is yes.
Did he promote or encourage the inclusion of abstinence and alternatives to abortion in sex-education in the City schools? Yes or No? My GUESS is Yes. This one particular I don’t remember reading anywhere--you may have me on that one.
Roe vs. Wade and of itself is simply bad law to begin with. It was a red-herring and continues to be. It was a manipulation of an emotional subject to use as a means to subvert the Constitution. If a woman has a vitamin deficiency and has a spontaneous miscarriage--is she a criminal? What if her deficiency is of genetic origin? What are the actual repurcussions of Roe v Wade; as it has been applied to the Law? Are these “collateral issues” the real purpose for hearing the case? Were the opinions of the Court a precise explanation of the issues involved, and how the case was to be interpreted and applied by the courts to other cases?
What effect has the law had upon the sovereignty of local Government? State Government? Think dammit!
The subject of Immigration Law: Inherited, but I don’t know of anything which he did to influence things in a more Conservative direction. This one is completely open to debate--I don’t see any clear indication of a conservative “bent” on this subject at all. Was this something which was ignored?
There are limits to activism. One could easily argue that strident activism would have resulted in absolutely nothing being accomplished during his tenure as Mayor of New York.
How about Gun Laws? OUCH! You definitely have me on that one--or do you? It’s about half-and-half.
From his personal commentary about issues, it can be inferred very easily that he believes that the obligations and authority of State and Local Governments, and those of the Federal Government should be clearly defined and enforced. Gun Laws, Gay Marriage, and Abortion are subjects which he has clearly stated should be handled by the States, not the Federal Government. That would be a Republican position--not a conservative one.
The Classic Conservative position on the issue of Gun Control was defined prior to the Civil War: It is an issue which is to be defined by Local Law and Ordinance. It was not unusual to have to check with the local sheriff about the local gun ordinances when entering a town in the “territories”. Many towns forbid unsecured firearms and that was acceptable to the courts at the time. The right of ownership was covered by the 2nd amendment, but the specifics as to what you can do with them were covered by local ordinance.
The “Republican” viewpoint on Gun ownership does not appear to be well thought out. Appearances indicate it is a mindless pursuit of votes.
Gay Marriage:
The Conservative view (as the result of an informal poll,) is that the word “Marriage” is of religious origin and should not be extended to include those things which are anti-thetical to religious doctrine. That would constitute a governmental imposition of RELIGIOUS law; in essence, it would be the imposition of a “State Religion”. ”Civil Union” on the other hand, supports, encourages and rewards stable relationships. This, in theory, encourages civility and social responsibility; part of the bedrock of Civilisation. The “Republican” view? Don’t really know.
Abortion: Covered above.
All in all, I’d say he is acceptable to many, if not most conservatives (were they to educate themselves.)
EDIT: emphasis
