Justus For All

As an NYC resident and former Giuliani constituent with some pretty strong feelings about him, I agree that he’s running for president, but how can an avowedly pro-choice pro-gay rights candidate have any hope in a Republican primary? He once appeared in drag at a gay rights event. I can only imagine what his chances will be in GOP primary when that picture circulates.

We will see. I think you misuderstand most Republican’s views on both of those issues. Most Republicans, even primary voters, are not as rabid about either as is presented in many circles.

Really? Good, ’cause I’m tired of being lectured to by Republicans who say that Democrats don’t understand red-state America, as evidenced by the fact that we’re pro-choice and pro-gay rights.

It isn’t so much what you believe, as the means you choose to get your way.

What does that mean?

I think most Republicans are far less concerned about gay rights or abortion than the professional conservatives have led everyone to believe. And to the extent they are concerned about those issues, I don’t think Guiliani in drag is that big a deal; much more important is that he makes religious conservatives feel he respects their opinions — isn’t that what everyone wants anyway? To have other people respect their views.

I think that’s what Dave was getting at, “It isn’t so much what you believe, as the means you choose to get your way.” Far too many pro-choice and gay rights advocates publicly regard as silly or backward their opponents’ beliefs, when a far more effective course of action would be to treat religious conservatives with the respect I think they deserve, no matter how wrong they may be on many things.

Cardinal Martini: huh? People who are opposed to legal abortion have called people who are in favor of legal abortion everything from baby-killers to the moral equivalent of Nazis. People who are in favor of legal abortion have called people who are opposed to legal abortion pretty nasty things, too. Then there are people on both sides with more moderate ways of phrasing things. But your way of framing it holds that only side in the debate has ever been disrespectful in the way it expressing its disagreement.

HP: Cardinal Martini didn’t say whether or not Republican politicians or political organizations treat blue staters in a respectful manner. That is pretty irrellevant to whether Red State people will accept Guiliani or not. The question isn’t whether a moderate can win a blue state Democatic primary or not (Leiberman anyone?) but whether a moderate can win a red state Republican primary or not.

The tactics I am talking about refer both to the general tone that Martini is talking about and actual tactics of getting the desired programs enshrined into law. In both cases, the courts have been chosen rather than the legislature as the means of doing so, this bothers a lot of people.

There is a substantial number of people, probably an absolute majority, that don’t believe gay marriage is a good idea. Most of these people are not against ‘gay rights’ unless you demand that being against gay marriage is being against ‘gay rights’. It is quite clear that for a number of Democratic activists being against gay marriage means you are a mouth-breathing bigot.

If you call someone a mouth-breathing bigot, they are unlikely to vote for you. On the other hand, if you say, I am for gay marriage and think we should pass a law to legalize it but I respect that you can disagree and don’t think that just because you disagree you are a bigot, people will at least listen, and might, if they agree with you on other things, vote for you.

Some are in fact bigots, and they very well may not vote for you if you support gay marriage, but now we are talking about a minority, not the majority.

Oh, so using courts instead of legislatures to get your way alienates people? Why didn’t that come up when everyone was so het up about Raich and Kelo? Or the fact that the Supreme Court has been enforcing its will on everything from the Endangered Species Act to the Violence Against Women Act to affirmative action to a ban on the possession of guns near schools? Sorry, but I don’t buy the line that the real reason that Republican primary voter types don’t vote for Democrats is because of the choice of forum rather than the substantive issues at stake.

You’re wrong about gay marriage, by the way. I defy you to think of a Democrat with a serious shot at the presidential nomination in 2004 or 2008 who is in favor of gay marriage. Are John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, and Hillary Clinton regularly subject to accusations of being mouth-breathing bigots? I mean, from someone other than possibly Andrew Sullivan?

As a final note, I find it ironic that Rudy Giuliani’s prospects are the occasion to lecture Democrats that the real problem is the tone they take. It’s hard for me to think of a politician who takes on a more nasty tone in political style than Giuliani. That’s even part of his appeal, I think.

HonestPartisan: Dude, I never said that only “one side has ever been disrespectful in the way it expressing its disagreement.” We weren’t talking about what anti-abortion people call pro-abortion people. We were talking about how moderates can win over conservatives. Acting like a victim doesn’t impress me.

Again with the victim talk; “As a final note, I find it ironic that Rudy Giuliani’s prospects are the occasion to lecture Democrats that the real problem is the tone they take. It’s hard for me to think of a politician who takes on a more nasty tone in political style than Giuliani.”

I’m not lecturing “Democrats that the real problem is the tone they take.” I’m trying to expound on why I think the religious conservatives noted in Sullivan’s piece might be receptive to Giuliani but not to liberal Democrats. I suggested that it is because Rudy seemed to treat them with respect, and that most liberals do not. Prove me wrong, but don’t whine about what I’m writing.

None of those items you mention are in the center of ‘the culture wars’ which is why court action in those areas is hugely threatening to many people.

You seem to hold the position, which we have argued about before, that the courts to be consistant must either approve of everything the legislatures do, or disapprove of everything the legislatures do. You are the only person I know of who holds this position.

Most people think that the courts should intervene when constitutionally appropriate and not intervene when it is not. The second most popular view (more common on the left, although occassionally seen on the far right) is that courts should do what is ‘good’ regardless of law or not.

It is undeniably true that Democratic politicians get a pass from activists for behavior that a Republican politician is denigrated for. A descent example is comparing allegations of sexual harrassment by Clinton to that of Clarence Thomas.

Mainstream Democratic candidates have stradled the gay marriage debate, that is undenably true. Anyone who reads the left side of the blogoshere knows though that many on the left (and note I said activists) paint red staters as mouth breathing bigots precisely because they are against gay marriage. Sullivan is actually much less agressive in this than Daily Kos for example.

I don’t consider this a ‘lecture’, I consider it an analysis of Rudy’s chances and I think that you assurance that red staters won’t vote for him is a symptom of what I am talking about. As far as I am concerned, I would be perfectly happy if Democrats continue using the tactics that have proven so successful in recent times.

I of course have never witnessed a Guiliani campaign. I have read his book and seen his speeches and have not seen a ‘nasty tone.’ Self assured and uncompromising perhaps, but not nasty.

I apologize for belaboring this thread, but I just want to respond to a couple of things, because I don’t think I stated a point clearly enough.

After the 2004 election, Democrats were treated to a lot of lecturing from people whose message basically came down to, you just don’t get red America, because you support gay marriage and abortion and they’re not going to accept that in places like Alabama and Nebraska. If that meme is correct, then Giuliani doesn’t stand a chance. If Giuliani does stand a chance, then that meme is incorrect. But I think the two are irreconcilable.

Cardinal Martini tried to reconcile it by saying that it’s not actually not about the substantive issues, but the tone. I disagree that it’s the tone, because the tone on both sides of controversial issues can get pretty nasty. If the tone of discourse was the real factor, then it seems to me to be a wash. I’m not whining about what people who disagree with me call me. I don’t particularly care.

Dave Justus tried to reconcile it by making the same point, that activists in the blogosphere make disparaging remarks about legal abortion or gay marriage, and that’s the real problem. This has the same problems as CM’s analysis: the right-wing blogosphere calls its adversaries Stalinsts, fascists, terrorists, or sympathizers of all these groups. If the political sympathies of Red State America turn on the level of discourse among the most exercised partisans, then that’s a wash, too.

DJ then tries to reconcile it by saying that it’s the forum in which these issues are dealt with that’s really the problem — that is, resolving issues through the courts rather than legislatures. I find it extremely hard to believe that gay marriage opponents are cool with it as long as it passes a state legislature rather than a Court. If the issue were really that courts trample on democratic prerogatives, then the conservatives are the ones more guilty of that in recent years than the liberals. (And DJ, you misstate the tangential point about courts: I think it’s inconsistent to complain that they usurp the democratic role of the legislature and then fail to object when courts usurp the democratic role of the legislature).

The bottom line is that Giuliani’s shot at the GOP nomination and the repetitive criticisms I heard about gay marriage and abortion in the wake of the 2004 election aren’t reconcilable.

I think that the meme of red states won’t vote for anyone who supports abortion or gay marriage is incorrect.

I think that the meme Democrats don’t ‘get’ red states is correct.

Part of ‘getting’ red states is tone, part of it is the tactics that are advocated in the culture wars, and part of it is certainly issues like national defense etc.

Sullivan’s article makes me believe that Guiliani, ‘gets’ red states and therefore his positions won’t be an insurmountable problem, possibly not even a large problem.

I expect that if he has a ‘red state’ problem it will be more character issues, such as his divorce and things like that than anything else. His record and his prominence around 9/11 will probably overcome those issues.

I don’t know if I “get” red states since I am both pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, and I’ve lived in blue states all my life. But, it has always been my impression that most Americans view issues like gay marriage, abortion, and even the threats posed by the Soviets or the Islamic Jihadists as proxies for what really concerns all of us, our own security.

If that’s true, then red staters are concerned about gay marriage only in so far as they believe by allowing it it will erode the overall institution of marriage and thus erode our society. The obvious way for a pro-gay marriage type such as Guiliani, therefore, to connect to red staters is by sincerely listening to their concerns, respecting their positions, and trying to assure them that gay marriage isn’t about destroying our civilization, because clearly he wants to preserve our country just as much as they do. (And it seems to me that far too many on the left are in favor of gay marriage and other contra-conservative social arrangements precisely because they chip away at our society’s traditions.)

Well, to some extent a member of a political party trying to make peace with a constituency of his party that he has public disagreements with is in a dramatically different posture than people in the opposing party. So I would agree that Giuliani’s in a more advantageous position vis a vis Republican primary voters than a Democrat is in the presidential election. But the experience of John McCain in 2000 in South Carolina and elsewhere, where the religious right pummeled him — and his transgressions from their agenda are a lot less severe then Giuliani’s — makes me seriously doubt that Giuliani has a shot. Given that Giuliani is pro-gay rights and appears to share Bush’s foreign policy views, he’s a dream candidate for Andrew Sullivan, whose analysis I respect but have reason to believe errs toward the wishful as to this point.