Rudy Giuliani and the Authoritarianism Question:
I very much appreciate John McGinnis's libertarian case for Rudy Giuliani. At the same time, it seems to me that there's a significant objection to Giuliani from a libertarian perspective: Many consider him the most authoritarian of the Republican nominees and the least concerned with the Rule of Law. (To get a flavor of the critiques, consider this video exchange between Megan McArdle and Dan Drezner. For a particularly harsh critique from a left perspective — over the top, in my view, but worth mining for evidence amidst the rhetoric — see here). I'd be very interested in hearing responses to these concerns from libertarianish Giuliani supporters.
Well worth a read.
No, amazingly he somehow hasn't found this blog (at least not that I've ever seen).
Now, the officers may have made that up out of thin air, but I don't believe it. More than likely they took to extremes an unspoken directive to deal harshly with even the most minor crimes (The "broken windows" theory of criminal justice).
Should Guiliani be held responsible? Hell yeah. He was in charge of the executive and ultimately their boss. He defended them for a significant period of time until it became politically infeasible.
Considering that Louima later recanted that part of the story, your whole comment is pointless.
Not surprising at all. After all, Pat Buchanan's got a long history of hatred. So it's no wonder that people like Buchanan and Greenwald would have problems with Giuliani.
Those sentences make no logical sense, unless you are trying to suggest that Giuliani is the antithesis of hate.
Surely Patrick Dorismond would be a better two words?
Now, the officers may have made that up out of thin air, but I don't believe it.
Actually, I think Louima admitted that "it's Giuliani time" was made up.
That is a very weak case, unless you are defining libertarianism as simply opposition to religion. The South is the most fiscally conservative part of the country, for instance.
-- Giuliani, 1994
From a New York Times article.
Including states like Mississippi, which receive a good bit more than $1 back for every $1 they pay in taxes. But some of that goes to the [stage whisper] b-l-a-c-k Mississippians. Hence the need for fiscal conservatism!
Giuliani is arguing that the rule of law provides more freedom than anarchy. Ask any New Yorker who walked through Central Park before and after Giuliani whether that argument is true.
NYC cops shot more people in the four years of David Dinkins than than in the eight years of Rudy.
Rudy also opposes government support of obscene art. Given the nature of the current art scene that's practically a a call for complete defunding of government art. Very libertarian position.
Rudy was bad on freedom of enterprise as a prosecutor but his negative impact was reduced by losses on appeal (he lost most of his big cases that were appealed).
I fit that description and I never had problems walking through Central Park before Giuliani, during Giuliani, or after Giuliani. Your results may differ. For those who like data rather than anecdotage, crime started dropping sharply in NYC two years before Giuliani became Mayor. While Giuliani was Mayor, crime dropped substantially nationwide and in many formerly crime-plagued cities where Giuliani was not Mayor. Since Giuliani stopped being Mayor, crime in NYC has continued to drop steadily. Homicides in 2007 were as low as they have been since we started keeping tolerably reliable statistics in 1963.
On the larger issue, if a bunch of phony libertarians like McArdle, Kerr and Drezner are against you, that to me is a highly persuasive libertarian case for Giuliani.
On a policy level, Giuliani is more libertarian than many in the GOP because he does not generally believe in regulating markets or minds. However, Giuliani is a hard ass on law enforcement and security in general. Furthermore, Rudy does have an authoritarian management style.
In comparison to the actual governing policy positions of Romney (government mandated health insurance &higher taxes), Huckabee (higher taxes and spending), and McCain (McCain Feingold, etc), you can make a reasonable argument that Rudy's actual governing policies (as opposed to his management style) are more libertarian that his main competitors.
Paul is the closest thing to a libertarian running for President, but I do not think the vast majority of the GOP likes his isolationism nor his blame America first view of foreign affairs with whoppers like Clinton's bombing of Iraq caused 9/11 or the liberation of Iraq caused the assassination of Bhutto.
It is however pleasant to recall Sean Hannity on the subject:
Fox News pundit Sean Hannity was one of Louima's biggest critics during the trial, charging that he had fabricated the rape — calling him "lying Louima" — and using interviews with people alleging Louima had past sexual relationships with men to bolster the claim that he had sustained his injuries during a "gay sex act." Hannity stopped using the "lying Louima" epithet after Volpe confessed to sodomizing Louima with the help of another officer.
Undoubtedly, Hannity also offered his heartfelt apologies to Louima, but somehow that didn't make it into the Wikipedia article.
Well that's an equally persuasive case for, say, Kucinich or Gravel whom I'm guessing McArdle, Kerr and Drezner also dislike.
Good to see you are interested in a substantive discussion. I am no fan of Paul at all, but to call his criticisms of US foreign policy (both in the Clinton and Bush administrations) a "blame America first view of foreign affairs" shows that you likely don't have much between the ears and/or that your primary news source is Instapundit, Hew Hughitt, Rush Limbaugh and the Corner.
Prescription drug entitlement. Look it up. When you weigh its costs, it is the most anti-free market legislation in recent memory. It is also the most significant piece of domestic spending legislation ever passed in the last 100 years by a Republican President and a fully Republican Congress.
BD: Paul is the closest thing to a libertarian running for President, but I do not think the vast majority of the GOP likes his isolationism nor his blame America first view of foreign affairs with whoppers like Clinton's bombing of Iraq caused 9/11 or the liberation of Iraq caused the assassination of Bhutto.
Good to see you are interested in a substantive discussion. I am no fan of Paul at all, but to call his criticisms of US foreign policy (both in the Clinton and Bush administrations) a "blame America first view of foreign affairs" shows that you likely don't have much between the ears and/or that your primary news source is Instapundit, Hew Hughitt, Rush Limbaugh and the Corner.
I actually like nearly all of Paul's stands concerning domestic policy. However there is no other honest way of describing his claims concerning the causes of 9/11 and the assassination of Bhutto as anything except a "blame America first view of foreign affairs." Paul expressly and falsely blamed the United States for forcing al Qaeda to murder 3500 during 9/11 and Bhutto more recently.
This is the classic isolationist response to external threats - if we just leave them alone, they will leave us alone. Thus, isolationists reason that it must be our fault if an enemy attacks the United States.
More evidence that the wacky right (Buchanan) and the wacky left (Greenwald) think alike. American politics is not a left to right line anymore, it is a circle.
There is nothing about Giuliani that is "authoritarian". It is a slur to mean he is/was a dictator. I would expect the liberals here to like the term but to even pose the question in this way speaks poorly of Professor Kerr.
It is not "authoritarian" to exercise lawful power agressively. By that standard, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln were "authoritarian".
As for "least concerned with the Rule of Law", what does that mean? Even the left wing article linked said that he obeyed the "Rule of Law" in that he used the law to advance his policies and obeyed court decisions that went against him.
Rudy is no more a danger to the Republic than Hillary Clinton. He is a strong willed man who pushes the limits of executive power but within the American tradition.
I basically think that if it weren't for the fact that anti-abortion people were run out of the Democratic party over the last two decades, Huckabee would still be a Democrat.
BD: The GOP is a conservative party which generally shares the same desire for free markets with the libertarians.
Prescription drug entitlement. Look it up. When you weigh its costs, it is the most anti-free market legislation in recent memory. It is also the most significant piece of domestic spending legislation ever passed in the last 100 years by a Republican President and a fully Republican Congress.
I used the term "generally" for a reason.
Apart from the tax rate reductions and the partial birth abortion ban, Mr. Bush arguably had the most liberal domestic policy of any GOP President since Richard Nixon completed the Great Society. You will note that the President overruled his party's conservatives and passed the new drug entitlement with an alliance with Dems and the liberal AARP. Indeed, Mr. Bush's profligacy is a major reason why he has Nixon-esque approval ratings. Indeed, Bush's approval ratings among GOP would be much lower if he was not a rock on the Iraq War.
And let's not forget Rudy's position on guns.
What's a real libertarian?
I don’t think calling Orin a “phony libertarian” is accurate and he (much like Eugene) is generally a pretty fair-minded fellow particularly when dealing with people he disagrees with.
As far as Megan, while she occasionally takes a libertarian stance on the issues, she’s just as likely to take a Nanny Statist attitude as well but she’s generally upfront about it.
Dan Drezner OTOH is a lot like Andrew Sullivan in his temperament, he holds himself out as a Republican (or libertarian) so he can bash them and then endorses a Democrat whom (if his previous posts are to be believed) is even further from his previously stated position on the issues.
Bob from Ohio;
Saying Rudy is "only" as authoritarian as Lincoln and the Roosevelts would kinda prove Professor Kerr's point in many minds, mine included as to FDR and Lincoln.
John McGinniss (my Exeter classmate) is a real (more properly, a sensible) libertarian: he doesn't, so far as I know, support spending $3 billion of government money on stem cell research as Mr. Drezner does, and he doesn't think that there is a legal right to have sex in public restrooms as Ms. McArdle does.
Of course the rule of law provides more freedom than anarchy. But he's not merely arguing that we must respect the rights of others, perform our civic duties, and submit ourselves to gov't enforcement of the same. He's arguing for a nanny state premised on the notion that we citizens can't take care of ourselves and shouldn't question what the gov't does 'in the interest of security'. In the NYC subways, you're not allowed to carry a firearm for protection against criminals, and your suitcase or backpack is subject to random search even if they don't reasonably suspect you of wrongdoing. Goodbye, 2nd and 4th amendments!
Incidentally, I could be wrong, but my understanding is:
1. The policies providing for random searches of bags in the NYC subways were instituted by Bloomberg. You are deceptively attributing them to Giuliani.
2. There are no special rules about firearms on the New York subways. The same permit regimen that is applicable to the entire city applies in the subways.
3. The New York City permit laws long antedate Giuliani and were not altered under his administration.
What is "libertarian" about locking people up for having sex in public restrooms?
Assume, for purposes of the question, that the sex in question occurs within a latched stall.
My question is a serious one, since if that really is "libertarian," then I clearly have no idea what the term means.
Google: Giuliani + ferrets.
Even to the extent that's true in the abstract, the problem is that Huckabee isn't.
But Huckabee is not under discussion. "Southern Christian religious populists" are. And there is precious little evidence that they are big government people, unless you want to define them as such.
The question implies an understanding of libertarianism which few people share. It also explains why many people feel uncomfortable indentifying with libertarians. Are we really sure we want to be the people who stand up for sex in public bathrooms? That right there goes a long way towards explaining why libertarianism will never be a mainstream political view.
2. When did Dan support that?
3. Surely you don't think banning sex is the more libertarian position. Do you mean the fact that she pointed out the idiocy of arresting Larry Craig for not having sex in public bathrooms?
Priorities, people. If this is all that the libertarian movement has to worry about then it really serves no useful purpose.
1. You are so right. I apologize.
2. November 3, 2004. You could look it up.
3. Banning sex in public restrooms is the sensible policy. McArdle veers wildly between libertarian insanity (like supporting a legal right to have sex in public restrooms) and liberal nanny-statism, if it's a cause she feels strongly about.
I would be annoyed if the person next to me started swearing loudly into his cell phone, but it wouldn't occur to me to have the person arrested.
Also, the property owner could presumably forbid such conduct, and order violators to leave the premises, etc.
But is there anything positively libertarian about criminalizing bathroom-stall sex? If so, what?
So the guy cursing loudly into his cell phone, and the guy pretending to have sex, should both be arrested?
In order to make the restrooms safe for children?
"Nanny-state," indeed.
I thought the issue was whether the act itself of having sex in the bathroom stall should be illegal, as in, punishable by law no matter what public restroom it's in, no matter whether the owner prohibits the conduct or not.
In order to make the restrooms safe for children?
I admit, I find this incomprehensible. Are you saying that the guy cursing loudly into his cell phone is a danger to children?
You seem to be under the impression that Giuliani will not raise your taxes. I think that is a mistake.
There are quality of life people out there who are also in favor of smaller government. Or at least no larger government.
I don't think that libertarianism is some grand all-encompassing system that offers a firm answer to every possible question. It's pretty much silent on the question of whether or not we should lock somebody up for having sex in a public place.
But there is nothing in libertarianism which requires us to allow such activity, unless we are in thrall to Mill's idiotic "harm principle".
the airport problem could be solved by having private rules against such conduct
I'm 100% sure that the airport has such rules. Although most large airports are not private entities in any case, but some form of semi-state body.
But as a legal matter something can be "public" even if privately owned. Shops and restaurants, for instance.
Do you really think that random searches of a tiny proportion of subways riders will significantly improve security against terrorists? If the police have a reasonable suspicion that someone is malevolently carrying explosives, then of course they should search the guy. But random searches just give the illusion of security without any of its substance.
OK, but do you doubt that Guiliani agrees whole-heartedly with this policy? Just try to imagine Giuliani denouncing it as stepping on our Constitutional rights!
Perhaps there are no special rules (I'm not familiar with the exact subway regulations), but there are prominent signs in the subway reminding good citizens that guns are evil and illegal to carry there.
Yes, but he defended them. Even running for president, he still defended them, saying that NYC needs different gun control laws than rural areas.
Sounds a lot like Bush saying that when people are in need, government has got to act.
- wekt
Did you read the whole article? The vast majority of that article is about cutting government and reducing the nanny state!
It is true that his record on guns is bad. It is also true that I don't know enough about the details of his administration to say whether he did make grabs for power. But when it comes to nanny-state, welfare state, size of government in terms of scope, offices, taxes and the like: he has the belief, rhetoric and record of a libertarian.
A prosecutor cannot ease crushing poverty or end homelessness or treat drug addicts or help people with AIDS. But a mayor can. And a mayor must.
And a mayor didn't.
Isn't it a question of should the constitution of the US protect sex in public or is it a matter for state and local laws?
If you can say that then you really don't know enough about the detals of his administration. I've posted several links in this thread that should help you out. He has neither the belief, rhetoric, or record of a libertarian.
You think that the essence of libertarianism is Mill's silly harm principle? If so, we can abort this discussion right here.
Cokie Roberts - "Would you vote in the Senate for McCain-Feingold?"
Giuliani - "Yeah, yes. I'm a big supporter of McCain-Feingold, I have been for a long time."
The harm principle is idiotic because . . . it's a sensible and dignified way to treat adult human beings? It doesn't allow you to harass others with the force of law simply because they offend your sensibilities? I'm a bit confused. Note that you are labeling without explanation "idiotic" the core thesis of On Liberty, generally regarded as one of the classic statements of classical liberal thought and one which has powerful resonance in political theory and discourse..
He certainly has the rhetoric, and he certainly has the record. I can't read minds, but he seems to have the belief. Despite other reason articles, even at Reason he has fans - he is an "innovator in action".
My favorite quote of his:
"You might be shocked to find out that when I became mayor, the city owned a radio station, a television station, parking lots and a number of other endeavors that weren't within the sphere of the government's proper role. So I did what any good capitalist would do: I sold them off."
That goes a way towards explaining the great power and influence of "the U.S.'s Libertarian Party". A curious formulation, btw. Are you Candadian or non-American?
He certainly has the rhetoric, and he certainly has the record.
Well, I have quoted some of his rhetoric and record here, which you've managed to ignore.
So I did what any good capitalist would do: I sold them off."
A good capitalist is not the same thing as a good libertarian. Or even a bad libertarian. I'd expect any libertarian to be aware of that.
Here is some of his rhetoric.
And his record.
It is passing strange that devout believers in the Sacred Harm Principle are also willing to support Rudy Giuliani. If he has a Harm Principle, it's "People should be harmed if they don't do what I say."
Wonderful. But is he any sort of libertarian, or even a small government conservative? No. He described himself a "Rockefeller Republican" and he backed that up by his actions, including taking the Feds to court to keep the pork flowing to New York.
I'm not a liberal, so forgive me if I don't bow down before JS Mill.
He was concerned about a tyranny of the majority. Liberalism has solved that problem via a tyranny of the minority, which is even more hostile to freedom.
I conceded already his position on guns (as bad). Some of the rest of the quotes you have taken out of context - he can say that something has "done some good" without being in favor of it. He cut welfare rolls by a huge amount. And he believed (as many people do) that the line item veto is unconstitutional. That need not be about wanting to keep pork - he cut tons of porky projects and programs while in office by other means.
You have not convinced me of anything.
As to your comment that being a good capitalist doesn't make you libertarian- people use whatever words they want, capitalist is fine with me! Thatcher was a good capitalist too when she privatized 5 public firms a year for 10 years, shrinking a welfare state more than any other leader of a non-transition economy. It sounds to me like a true free market position, like Reagan, unafraid of the socialist rhetoric coming from the other side, willing to say "capitalist" recognizing that it isn't a bad word, understanding the difference.
I love that quote for use of that word. Can you imagine anyone saying that in the 1970s? Can you imagine many people even saying it now? Sadly, it still isn't popular to say "this is outside the scope of government's role, like a good capitalist, I'm gonna sell it to the highest bidder." And he did it too!
I love it! That is the stuff of libertarian wet dreams, if you ask me.
As for your first point, so what? Should libertarians adopt non-libertarian views just because it would be popular? If we wanted to do that, we wouldn't be libertarian in the first place. It's one thing to compromise on specific policies, but that's the core principle of libertarianism.
Well, Der Stürmer hated Stalin.
(Double Godwin points!)
I don't regard supporting sex in public as a libertarian position. I also don't regard the father of liberalism as saying much of intertest with respect to libertarianism. And I don't regard 19th century liberalism as being the same thing as libertarianism, as you seem to.
Not that any self-respecting 19th century liberal would have condoned sex in the public bathrooms.
I conceded already his position on guns (as bad). Some of the rest of the quotes you have taken out of context
Then you should have no problem providing the missing context and exposing me as dishonest. Please, be my guest.
"He cut welfare rolls by a huge amount."
He opposed the 1996 welfare reform bill. Not a very libertarianish thing to do. And the drop in welfare rolls in NYC was mainly due to the booming economy, which he had almost nothing to do with.
"he believed (as many people do) that the line item veto is unconstitutional"
Come off it. If Giulaini has ever thought seriously about the Constitution than he's kept it very secret. He wanted his pork and his phony concern for the constitution was a handy hook to hang his arguments on. The same man has long insisted that abortion is a constitutional right.
His only consistent position on the constitution is that what is constitutional is whatever the SCOTUS says.
I love that quote for use of that word.
I don't know what you are referring to. I did not place quotation marks around any word.
capitalist is fine with me!
A capitalist is not a libertarian. Do you regard George Soros or Richard Mellon Scaife as being libertarians? What about Warren Buffet or Bill Gates? (I suspect the answer for at least one of them is 'yes', but that just shows what you know.)
See if you can identify the person speaking here, Mr Libertarian Capitalist.
Now if we could just get you to understand the difference between a "capitalist" such as John Corzine and a libertarian. Libertarians oppose concentrations of power, even in the hands of capitalists.
And his position on the First Amendment?
1. "Then you should have no problem providing the missing context and exposing me as dishonest. Please, be my guest."
I gave you a podcast. I could not find a full transcript of that speech, but even the limited one you get from the NY times shows a much different picture than you attempt to portray.
2. "He opposed the 1996 welfare reform bill. Not a very libertarianish thing to do. And the drop in welfare rolls in NYC was mainly due to the booming economy, which he had almost nothing to do with."
I would be interested to see your full proof on that- his rhetoric has always been against welfare- for example in that full speech I provided (the Reason link) which explained how he was against welfare and changed it to a jobs program in NY. I don't know why you think it had nothing to do with him in NY considering his complete overhaul of the program in NY. Funny coincidence that it would change for the first time in 4 decades by accident right after his massive overhaul.
3. "The same man has long insisted that abortion is a constitutional right. "
Justices of the court have also argued that. It might just be that some people reasonably believe that.
4. I love that quote for use of that word.
"I don't know what you are referring to. I did not place quotation marks around any word. "
I was being serious. I love his quote for his use of that word: capitalist. As I explain below, that word was off limits for a long tim. His use shows understanding, courage and chutzpah. I like it.
5. "A capitalist is not a libertarian. Do you regard George Soros or Richard Mellon Scaife as being libertarians? What about Warren Buffet or Bill Gates? (I suspect the answer for at least one of them is 'yes', but that just shows what you know.)"
I am not pro-business. I am free market. And I forcefully recognize the difference and explain it to those who don't understand it. However, a well reasoned defense of "capitalism" from a free market perspective (not a statist, interventionist perspective) is something to be cherished. It didn't exist for decades- many decades - as the socialists won.
"See if you can identify the person speaking here, Mr Libertarian Capitalist. "
I agree that business can be just as much as enemy as intellectuals-- fascists as much as socialists -- but its "Ms. Libertarian Capitalist" to you.