The Incredible Shrinking Giuliani

A reader who is a close observer of politics writes:

You wrote: “If my source is correct, then Tancredo’s thinking is similar to mine: my main reason for supporting Romney is to stop McCain and Giuliani.”

Giuliani is dead. Never really ran for the nomination of the red state Republican Party.

If what the reader says is true, it would tend to back up my comment the other day that Giuliani has not really exhibited the intention of becoming president, that he’s really been running for his ego.

But that leaves unanswered, what did he think he was doing for the last year? And what did his neocon supporters—whose terrible judgment is demonstrated yet once again by their all-out support of him—think he was doing?

And maybe the answer is: he and they thought that his record as mayor of New York, and his heroic image of 9/11, and his bellicose rhetoric about fighting Islamic extremism, would lead to his victory in the nomination race, without his actually having to do anything to win over the conservative base of the Republican party. In other words, he really did think (as I’ve been saying since early last year) that it was all about HIM, about his greatness. His greatness transcended mere politics, transcended mere questions of conservative and liberal. He just had to present himself and his greatness to the Republican voters, and they would automatically choose him as their nominee. So he didn’t have to take seriously the problem of how his record as a social liberal and his disastrous personal life would affect conservatives’ view of him. (I’m simplifying, as he did talk about the conservative aspects of his mayoralty such as his record as a tax cutter; but the overall picture holds.)

And that explains why, as the reader puts it, Giuliani never really ran for the nomination.

And the neocons, in believing in him so completely, show once again their endemic blindness to reality. For the neocons, since all human beings love their children, therefore all human beings including Muslims want democracy and are capable of democracy (even though Islam by its very nature is incompatible with democracy). For the neocons, if Iraqis vote in an election in 2005, therefore Iraq has a democracy and we’ve “won” the war (even though a mere election does not constitute a democracy and the insurgency continues full blast). And for the neocons, since Rudy is such a successful mayor and symbol of American strength, therefore he is the inevitable Republican nominee (regardless of his profound disqualifications). Over and over, the neocons construct fictional realities out of symbols and syllogisms, blocking out everything that doesn’t fit with the fiction, and believe these fictional realities to be true. Thus they’ve gone from the Incredible Shrinking War to Spread Democracy to the Incredible Shrinking Giuliani.

- end of initial entry -

Steven Warshawsky writes:

As someone who is a supporter of Rudy Giuliani, I respectfully disagree with the “diagnosis” offered in the post about the basis for his support (at least among some groups of Republicans and conservatives). It wasn’t his “heroic image” that drew us to Giuliani; it was his truly heroic achievements in New York City—which caused us to believe that he would be capable of similarly heroic achievements on the national level. What achievements? First, reinvigorating the central place of free enterprise and limited government in the conservative agenda. Among other things, Giuliani remains the only GOP candidate (besides Ron Paul) who adamantly opposes the move towards socialized medicine. The other candidates almost certainly will enter into “historic” legislation with the Democratic Congress on this issue. Second, taking a more realistic view of the war on terror. Given Giuliani’s actions and statements while mayor, we hoped that he would back away from the “nation-building” strategy embraced by President Bush and revert to a more limited, yet more aggressive national security strategy. And third, based on his palpable concern for quality of life issues in NYC and his outspoken opposition (in certain cases) to the far left cultural agenda (e.g., the Brooklyn Art Museum controversy), we hoped that he could find a “middle way” in the culture wars that would emphasize the concerns of the majority while still respecting minority rights. In all of these areas, what we envisioned above all was bold, outspoken leadership that promised the kind of transformative results that Giuliani achieved in NYC. As I see it, the problem with Giuliani’s presidential campaign is not just his “late state” strategy, but his failure to offer the kind of leadership that many Americans were expecting from him. He has come across as much smaller, and much more mundane, than we had anticipated. Without the “leadership” advantage, Giuliani does not come across as attractive a candidate (for many reasons) as some of the other contenders.

LA replies:

I thank Steven Warshawsky for this interesting angle on Giuliani; some of his points had not occurred to me. But doesn’t his account actually back up exactly what I have said? Namely, that Giuliani (even to the disappointment of his own supporters) did not put himself forward seriously as a president, did not articulate the kind of leader he would be? In effect, Mr. W. is saying that he had hoped that Giuliani would transform some of his notable actions as mayor (e.g. his protest against the dung exhibit, his kicking out Arafat from Lincoln Center) into the principles of a national platform; but that Giuliani did not do this.

As I see it, Giuliani did not do this, and was not able to do it, because those admirable actions were instinctive. They were not based on principle. They were unprincipled exceptions to the overall liberalism of our society to which Giuliani himself has no principled opposition. So instead, Giuliani ran on his iconic record as mayor (and I don’t think anyone gets elected as president of the U.S. by running on his record) and on his “heroism” on 9/11, which he endlessly exploited in a very gross and off-putting way. No real hero trumpets his own heroism. In any event, he did not present himself as someone ready to lead America.

Sage McLaughlin writes:

In a campaign season that has left conservatives with very little to feel hopeful about, we really should take heart in the sorry fizzle that was the Giuliani campaign. Neoconservatives, for all their effectiveness at political warfare, have a flaw that has become more and more obvious over time—they tend to think themselves far ahead of where they actually are, and tend to become embarrassing triumphalists at even a hint of victory. Hubris is the overused descriptor, but in the neocons’ case I think it is used so often because it is so apt. Over and over again—whether after the capture of Kabul from Taliban forces, or the disintegration of the Republican Guard, or the first “election” in Iraq—they fall all over themselves to declare victory and the turning of the inexorable tide.

This is true domestically, and within the conservative movement, as well. When Giuliani came onto the national scene, John Podhoretz enthusiastically embraced him as the only sane choice for GOP nominee, and denounced with nigh-Stalinistic furor anyone who dared suggest that social conservatives either should not or would not accommodate themselves to the new face of Republicanism. National security was all-important, 9-11 had changed everything, there could be no stopping it now, and anyone who tried was not only acting impudently, but was engaged in an act of pathetic futility. Well, so much for that.

Since I’ve been subject to no small amount of despair over the state of things for some time, I am going to savor the moment, since it appears, for now, that the neocons have not quite stripped conservatism of its aversion to cross-dressing philanderers like the former Mayor.

LA replies:

Not only is the moment to be savored, but Mr. McLaughlin’s comment.

E. writes:

As a New Yorker let me say that in pre-Giuliani days New York was not a safe place to live in (with the exception of the Italian neighborhoods).Guiliani fixed that and the police are still in charge.

Call it whatever you want, but pray that one like him becomes President of this great Republic. Closest thing to “give “Em Hell Harry.”

Clinton did not leave his “stain” on the dress alone. He (and she) stained the Presidency. Don’t get me wrong. What this country needs it shall not get.

LA replies:

I agree with you about Giuliani saving New York. But haven’t you heard of the Peter Principle? It means that people get promoted to the level of their incompetence. That Giuliani was a good mayor does not mean he would be a good president. As I’ve pointed out over and over, he is not the person who once fixed New York.

See these two VFR entries from last April (this and this) which sum up the Giuliani problem.

A female reader writes:

This is a very good thread with excellent input from the two readers. But I re-iterate what I said before. The heart went out of him when he sensed that the world wasn’t as in love with Judith as he was. He wanted affirmation of her and the whole debacle he precipitated on her part. That would have really stuck it to Donna even more. These are not good motives so they did not eventuate in success.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 25, 2008 10:34 AM | Send