Politics and Culture

Giuliani presents a problem for many conservatives in the party. He shouldn't. As Republicans, we should primarily concern ourselves with the economy and foreign policy while accepting any conservative that‘s at least neutral on cultural issues.

My reasoning on this is simple: cultural values percolate from the bottom up. MTV, Madonna, and Playboy (now Maxim) affected American culture many times more than did Bill Clinton, despite the opportunistic attacks of many of my conservative brothers. It was during Nixon and Reagan that American culture degenerated the most while opposition to abortion solidified, teenage pregnancy declined, and the current stalemate set in during Clinton’s reign.

Not only is a president an ineffectual moral leader, his exhortations may actually be counter-productive. As much as people hate a nag, the public hates a morally nagging politician much more. A president who spends his time telling people about cheating or stealing, not to mention anything having to do with sex, opens himself up to Saturday Night Live-type ridicule and uses up valuable voter attention. In short, a president should assume people know how to behave.

This de-emphasis of a candidate’s social policy assumes, as I mentioned, a neutral president. A president who actually lobbies for socially liberal changes, as Clinton did with gays in the military, should disqualify himself amongst conservatives-we don’t like to be nagged either. Neither should a president subsidize cardinally negative behaviors like sloth or irresponsible lust.

OK, back to Giuliani. According to the New York Times,

Rudolph W. Giuliani directly challenged Republican orthodoxy on Friday, asserting that his support for abortion rights, gun control and gay rights should not disqualify him from winning the party’s presidential nomination.

Should this be a problem for conservatives? Maybe, but probably not.

If by abortion rights, Giuliani means letting the court decide whether Roe should be repealed and then allowing each state to decide its own position while he out of the fray, that would be acceptable (neutral). If he would veto congressional actions like bans on partial birth abortion, then that would be quite another thing and a legitimate problem for conservatives.

If by gay rights Giuliani means accepting our gay brothers and sisters as full participants in American society, that’s one thing. If he uses the government to force a point of view on the public like limiting people’s freedom of association or changing the marriage standards, then, again, that’s quite another thing and it’s up to us to respectfully disagree.

I don’t understand why gun control is included. It’s no more a moral issue than speed limits. If neutral, fine. If he wants to enact the kind of counterproductive laws favored by our left citizens, then we should be heard, but appeals should focus on the practicality of such laws.

Even with these opinions, I’d vote for Giuliani if nominated. Remember, our choice will be between center-left and center-left, not between a negative and a carbon copy of you.