Filed under: 2008 elections, Libertarians — Michael van der Galien on May 30, 2007 @ 7:21 pm CEST
David Boaz warns Libertarians:
Behind Rudy Giuliani’s impressive lead in the polls is one fact that puzzles the pundits: Many cultural conservatives are backing a pro-choice, pro-gun control candidate. But what should be equally surprising is the strong support Giuliani is finding among libertarian-leaning Republicans, who also make up a big slice of the GOP base.
Here’s why: Throughout his career, Giuliani has displayed an authoritarian streak that would be all the more problematic in a man who would assume executive powers vastly expanded by President Bush.
Read Boaz’s entire article at New York Daily News.
The executive VP of the Cato Institute concludes:
iuliani’s view of power would be dangerous at any time, but especially after two terms of relentless Bush efforts to weaken the constitutional checks and balances that safeguard our liberty.
In 1964, Barry Goldwater declared it “the cause of Republicanism to resist concentrations of power.” George W. Bush has forgotten that; Rudy Giuliani rejects it.
I agree with Boaz that this side of Giuliani is not talked about enough. By all accounts, Giuliani seems to be very authoritarian.
Libertarians are rightfully on their guard.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
1 kritter
May 31, 2007 @ 3:41 am CESTHe sounds very dangerous. There is a lot of criticism of how he handled 9/11 from New Yorkers, yet that record is what he is running on. Giuliani does not seem like a moderate on the issues that count to me (civil liberties and the ability to repair our image in the world). I would hate to see the continuation of the GOP’s authoritarian tactics in Washington, and would almost rather risk another attack then continue as we have been. What’s that quote by Franklin? “He who would sacrifice liberty for a little security, deserves neither.”
2 C Stanley
May 31, 2007 @ 12:41 pm CESTKim,
Don’t you think that’s a bit over the top? Or do you approve of campaign rhetoric that says that we should fear a particular candidate being elected more than we should fear the terrorists who wish to attack us? Is it acceptable when Republicans use that kind of rhetoric to say that we shouldn’t elect Dems who’ll be weak against terrorism?
3 mvdg
May 31, 2007 @ 12:48 pm CESTCS: I do not think that it truly is over the top to be honest. I think that one can say: “would we like to have our freedoms like we had them before, and risk an attack; or do we want to do everything possible to prevent an attack, including giving up (some of) our freedoms?”
Now, I realize that is not how Kim worded it, but that lies, of course, at the heart of the matter.
an open society is always at risk of being attacked.
Of course, I am not saying that those who are tough on terror want to take away your freedom, that is certainly not always the case, but one has to keep an eye on it… Isn’t that what conservatism is all about? Freedom?
4 kritter
May 31, 2007 @ 1:31 pm CESTI actually do fear some Republicans more than the terrorists. I know that sounds extreme, but its because I think the likelihood of another terrorist attack is smaller than the likelihood of the loss of civil liberties if we have another Republican administration.
And with the Bush administration, imo, we had the worst of both worlds- a foreign policy that ended up increasing the terrorist threat, and a domestic policy that demagogued the threat to consolidate centralized power and curb civil liberties. Al Gore is right when he says that strident sound bites that makes our blood boil has replaced reasonable conversation.
Yes, I don’t like demagogery and harsh rhetoric, but unfortunately some of it is true. I guess from a conservative’s point of view, the Democrats could be encouraging the terrorists- but it just seems to me that we can’t live our lives because we are afraid of what they might or might not do, and an accusation like that just tears our society down the middle.
5 C Stanley
May 31, 2007 @ 1:34 pm CESTWell, yes, that does sound extreme. And it makes no sense to simultaneously laud Al Gore for pointing out that “strident sound bites that makes our blood boil has replaced reasonable conversation” while you are adding your own strident sound bite.
6 kritter
May 31, 2007 @ 1:49 pm CESTCS-I guess than I am now an extremist, lol. But no regrets.. Once those freedoms are gone— we won’t be able to get them back and that should be scaring anyone who is thinking about voting for someone like Giuliani. I don’t think we have to see jackbooted thugs marching in the street or major media outlets being shut down. The loss of liberty has come in smaller increments.
BTW I am not saying that I’m happy with the Democrats either- they have not stood up to what has been going on in any meaningful way.
7 mvdg
May 31, 2007 @ 2:02 pm CESTLets divert the attention a bit from a terrorist attack and Giuliani / Republicans. Lets look at the general question, how much liberty should one sacrifice for (a feeling of) safety? Is there a line, if so, where? And.. do you think that Giuliani might break that line once in power? If so, why?
8 C Stanley
May 31, 2007 @ 2:04 pm CESTMvdG: I don’t have a problem with stating concern over authoritarianism, but only with the way Kim has phrased it. If you don’t think the Republicans should fearmonger over terrorism, then the same standard should apply to the Democrats when it comes to fearmongering over loss of civil liberties. Both are legitimate concerns and we should openly discuss policies to determine where we think the balance should lie, but we shouldn’t demonize people from one party or the other because that actually shuts down the discussion. In other words, conservatives/Republicans aren’t going to be any more receptive to that kind of rhetoric than the Democrats are to being called traitors.
9 C Stanley
May 31, 2007 @ 2:07 pm CESTAnd I think your question in comment #7 is a very important one. When people say that they feel Bush has gone too far, I agree, but I still don’t think it’s as serious as some would claim. So, I’d like to hear an actual discussion of where people think those lines should be drawn.
For me, an example would be the NSA wiretapping: I think Bush was right to seek a more vigorous and flexible surveillance program but I think it should be set up with oversight so it’s not the Executive branch alone deciding when warrantless searches should take place.
10 mvdg
May 31, 2007 @ 2:13 pm CESTWell, when I look at the situation in the Netherlands, I believe that the anti-terrorism laws were largely unnecessary. The government has enough powers to fight crime and terrorism as it is, there is no need to give the government more power. Does more power make it more easy for the government? Sure, but doing away with habeas corpus does too. Is it also possible to fight terrorism effectively without changing most laws? I’d say yes, so don’t change it.
If I were American, I would oppose the wiretapping program. The government is already able to tap people, it needs to meet certain qualifications to do so though, and those qualifications / demands are there for a very good reason.
11 mvdg
May 31, 2007 @ 2:14 pm CESTTrue enough.
12 kritter
May 31, 2007 @ 3:24 pm CESTI agree that it may not necessarily help the discussion. In this case, I was expressing a personal fear- not trying to fan it among others. If my goal was fearmongering why would I come to a conservative site to do so? But I apologize if that’s what you felt I was doing.
My fears have come out of the actions of the current administration, and watching the two Republican debates, where I felt that the only candidates who were standing up for the preservation of civil liberties were McCain (anti-torture) and Ron Paul.
13 C Stanley
May 31, 2007 @ 3:34 pm CESTOK, Kim- there’s no need to apologize as I don’t take offense or anything- I just don’t think you’re being consistent if you look at it that way in terms of what you fear, but criticize others for responding to their own fears. I can appreciate a more nuanced view of it but I hope you get my gist- don’t base your views on your fears at all, just speak in a positive way about what you’d like to see in a candidate. Since you obviously feel that there has been erosion of civil liberties, then state what you feel needs to be done, which candidates have endorsed that type of policy (you’ve already mentioned the two Republicans who at least have addressed it)- and also- do you feel that such policies in any way would lead to a greater danger of terrorist attack and what do you think our government should do about that?
14 kritter
May 31, 2007 @ 3:57 pm CESTWell, that is a more constructive approach, CS. But I think any discussion has to begin with an honest expression of our deepest fears. I wasn’t thinking as much about being consistent as my honest reaction to what I have seen in the GOP. I’m not condemning all Republicans, just some of the leadership. Just yesterday, Tom DeLay (who is at this point a pathetic figure I admit) was quoted saying that God was telling him to work to rebuild the Republican majority.
Altho I abhor the rhetoric framing Democrats as terrorist appeasers and surrender monkeys- it definitely hits a chord with those who care only that we not be defeated-ever. That’s not the way I think, but I get it that many- especially those in the military do think, and are receptive to it. Many cannot concieve of the benefits of using diplomatic efforts over military force. I think we need to use both, but be careful not to be seen as the world’s bully.
Anyway- I would like to see more of the candidates pledge to work within the FISA framework (or change the law to fit the need) and re-examine some of the more controversial portions of the Patriot Act. I will vote for someone who respects the Geneva Conventions, believes in a strong, healthy press, and wants to restore habeas corpus, and our confidence in a depoliticized Dept of Justice and in our intelligence agencies. Also, it is important to maintain the separation of church and state
I do feel the biggest enemy we face is ourselves, because don’t the terrorists win if we dissolve in hatred of the other side and respond to any attack by limiting our freedoms?
15 C Stanley
May 31, 2007 @ 4:03 pm CESTWell, Kim- please understand that the following is not necessarily my view but I’m playing devil’s advocate for the other side of your argument:
There are many people who will argue (and they are correct) that our civil liberties have been curtailed more at certain points in our past than they are now, but that we survived and the infringements were reversed after the ‘enemy’ was defeated.
WWII is one example, and the Civil War was another.
Now, the reason I don’t agree with those arguments is that today’s ‘enemy’ is more ambiguous and the fight is more open ended, so we have to be more cautious about temporarily suspending liberties because the temporary part may become permanent. I imagine you’d agree with me- but my point is that I think it’s helpful to understand the other viewpoint and also to ask ourselves: can we really assume that some of these infringements on our civil liberties aren’t needed, given that they obviously were used to defeat threats in the past? If not, then how do we balance the need to protect against external threats with the need to protect against our own government overstepping its authority?
16 Interested
May 31, 2007 @ 4:22 pm CESTI was thinking the same - boy you would have hated Lincoln and FDR.
I agree. It was not good in the aspect that investigation turned up abuses of the Patriot act. But at the same time it was good that they were found. One should start to really worry if nothing was found at all - for it would have meant either the law was way too strong - or way too weak.
Koppel described it best in his show on the Patriot act - We better have this discussion now - for if another 9/11 happens, there will not be another discussion.
17 kritter
May 31, 2007 @ 4:35 pm CESTInterested-OK, but those examples were for limited periods of time, and it is now recognized by historians that FDR’s decision to inter Japanese-Americans during WWII was a shameful overreaction to the prevailing threat.
I doubt that Americans would have put up with those conditions for an open-ended period of time, especially since our efforts seem to be producing a spread of terrorism instead of curtailing it.
CS- Yes I agree with what you wrote, and it is a difficult question. We don’t really have the knowledge to determine exactly which curtailments are necessary. Unfortunately, some of the abuses - like the FBI’s National Security Letters have poisoned a lot of people against their own government. Misinformation about the war and the fact that government agencies seem so incompetent when dealing with expanded powers and have become politicized has added to the mistrust. I’m not sure what the answers are, but I do know that whoever comes in in ‘08 will have to work hard to restore that trust. My problem is that most candidates aren’t even acknowledging that there is something that they need to repair.
18 Interested
May 31, 2007 @ 4:58 pm CESTYour looking with the benefit of History. At the time - they were open-ended.
You seem to be meshing Military and diplomatic actions with the Patriot act here.