Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

It is still crucial to know to what extent electing Rudy Giuliani as President will empower the religious cornerstone of the Republican Party. Thusfar, I perceive that he will value his secular principles over his loyalty to his party. He is still my favorite candidate.
If Gulinani wins, it will demonstrate that a candidate who has very "centrist" views on abortion (or even slightly Democrat-of-center) can win the GOP nomination. One would think that this would embolden future GOP candidates not to tow the religious line as much. Not only is Guliani away from the anti-choice guys on abortion, but he also redefined his concept of "constructionist" in a way that the religious guys would consider to be its opposite. It's pretty clear that he has abandoned is earlier attempt to gain their favor, having seen it as futile, and simply bound to paint him as a liar.

A long-thinking religious conservative, faced with Guliani as the GOP nominee, would almost have to vote for the Democrats to demonstrate conclusively that the religious folk aren't to be trifled with.

On the health-care thing, Guliani is talking up Bush's recent suggestion about moving control to individuals. So, that's definitely a good thing.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

A long-thinking religious conservative, faced with Guliani as the GOP nominee, would almost have to vote for the Democrats to demonstrate conclusively that the religious folk aren't to be trifled with.

...

I don't think that most religious conservatives would do this, however, especially if Hillary gets the nomination. Conservatives are so afraid of her being president that I think they'd vote for just about anybody in order to defeat her - even a pro-choice Republican.

I'm very interested in seeing how Giuliani's candidacy progresses; I'd very much like to see a pro-choice candidate get the Republican nomination, as I agree it would empower more Republicans to not go along with the religious right. So I'm encouraged that he's the current front-runner. However, it's also the case right now that the anti-choice Republican voters have many candidates to choose from; the pro-choice Republicans have only one. In other words, the anti-choice Republican vote is divided among many candidates. As some of these candidates drop out over time, the anti-choice vote will tend to consolidate behind one or two people.

It's early in the race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible that the relgious folk will hold their noses and vote GOP regardless, though I think their leaders understand what's at stake. The biggest negative -- from their perspective -- is not merely the 4 years of Democratic presidency, but the prospect of a Democrat appointing the next few SCOTUS justices. Here is what Dobson (from FocusOnFamily) says:

If given a Hobson's - Dobson's? - choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran - or if worse comes to worst - not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else
As you say, it's early days yet; a lot of what's happening is posturing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm sorry I didn't discover this thread earlier,

I originally posted this comment in "Presidential hopefuls 2008", but it seems to better fit in this thread.

Here's my comment:

I have read Peikoff's comments about voting republican. He seems to hold that anyone who votes Republican does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism.

I find this very confusing. I see that there are a lot of Christian conservatives running that party, but still, I am not convinced that most of them really LIVE by the standards of their religion. It would be much much worse if they really would, but in fact, I think it's exaggerated to say that party would bring us back to the dark ages.

To me they are religious in name only, just in love with certain traditions which seem to give them a sense of identity and self confidence that they fail to discover objectively. I look at them more like a club of traditionalists who happen to count economic freedom as one of their traditions they proudly try to maintain. Although many of them may not understand the true basis of freedom, I think Guiliani does much more than most of them.

And most of all, the degree to which their poor remnants of religious convictions could ever affect American lives negatively seriously is far less than the amount of added socialism by the Democrats could do.

And given the list of potential candidates, I think Guiliani qualifies in the field of leadership, I think he can bring that original sense of RATIONAL self confidence back to the country, I think he can remind Americans WHY their country is so great on a rational, objective basis, rather than just by quoting the bible. And I think by presenting America with his rational views, he could give the rest of the world some REAL arguments to ponder on, and remind the rest of the world why America ORIGINALLY has a properly founded constitution.

Because most people outside America seem to think America was founded on the Bible. It is time for the world to get the right impression. It is time that America gets a President who can really DEFEND America's actions rationally, rather than lowering America to a false basis even LOWER than that in many middle and western European countries by arguing with religious commandments.

I can't think of any European head of state who would really talk about God in any assembly, meeting, or other public performance or try to justify or convince others of certain actions with religion. And this is why no majority in any of these European countries would EVER take America serious again. They will always feel morally superior as long as America has a president who tries to argue with that mysticism.

I think a president who reminds Americans about the right philosophy is of fundamental importance now.

I believe Guiliani is goal directed, nows how to set goals and motivate others to keep their focus, nows how to think positively, nows how to look at the important aspects in life, those that matter, he's the one that believes in progress and understands the joy it brings rather than statism. I believe he can lead America through ANY crisis without splitting up the country and without making Americans feel ashamed of themselves, because he will always argue rationally.

I think America should use that rare opportunity and vote for Guiliani in hope of steering the country into the right direction philosophically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have read Peikoff's comments about voting republican. He seems to hold that anyone who votes Republican does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism.

I find this very confusing.

Welcome to the forum!

Dr. Peikoff's statement was certainly not meant to be self-contained. However, his reasoning was certainly based on decades of analysis of the Republican party. Just to be clear, the Republicans are not only bad because many of them do goofy things such as insist that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schools; many Republicans today are also in favor of massive government expansion, are anti-business and are championing a war of self-sacrifice in Iraq while refusing to acknowledge the threat of Islamic Totalitarianism.

If you are interested in some further explanations (again, these issues are not supposed to be obvious initially) I recommend reading any of the following:

No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism.

The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism.

The "Forward Strategy" for Failure.

If you prefer lectures, listening to some of the great lectures available on the registered users section of the Ayn Rand Institute's website (registration is free) are very helpful on this issue. Some great ones include:

* America versus Americans by Dr. Leonard Peikoff.

* Why the Forward Strategy of Freedom had to Fail by Dr. Yaron Brook.

* Why Conservatives are Anti-Business by Dr. Yaron Brook.

* Neoconservatives versus America by Dr. Yaron Brook.

and many more that are indeed relevant based on the title.

I think America should use that rare opportunity and vote for Guiliani in hope of steering the country into the right direction philosophically.

I personally still perceive that Rudy Giuliani is the best candidate of all who are presently available: Democrat and Republican. However, I still think he owes an explanation as to why he thinks we should stay in Iraq and what he plans to do differently. It would also be comforting if he elaborates on what he means by appointing "Strict Constructionist" judges to the Supreme Court.

You might also find it interesting that Dr. Peikoff is unconvinced that Rudy Giuliani is a good candidate to vote for in a general election. Here is my earlier post about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those interested, the following question and answer was posted on Leonard Peikoff's website:

"Q: Rudy Giuliani seems to be the least disgusting Republican presidential candidate in many years. What are your thoughts of his candidacy?

A: All I know about Mr. Giuliani as a candidate is that he has already softened his stands on abortion, immigration, and Iraq. This will hardly convince conservatives but will alienate liberals; it is the classic formula for going nowhere. The major reason, however, why I would not support Mr. Giuliani is his vicious behavior some years ago toward Michael Milken in the junk bond issue of Drexel Burnham. And even beyond this, I will not vote for any Republican until the party repudiates its affiliation with Christianity, if I live that long."

I hope that the reaction to this statement by Peikoff will not be as bitter as the last!

Oh, and...let's include this Q&A from said site:

Q: Why is it proper to vote? If I don’t believe that the current state has any moral, philosophical legitimacy, why should I condone this political process by voting (in any way), thereby giving my consent and helping to legitimize political power?

A: It is often advisable not to vote. But you are not supporting a system merely by voting for one of its candidates, any more than you are supporting a government post office by mailing a letter through it. In both cases, you are given no alternative. In the voting case, however, you are sometimes given a certain alternative: to select a major killer or a minor one. It is no endorsement of killing, or of the system in general, to support the latter man. Of course, if you go out and campaign for his virtue, you are supporting the system. But if, to the extent of your ability, you denounce our “mixed” system publicly, speak the truth about both candidates, but then urge people to vote for the lesser threat, strictly as a matter of self-defense and buying time, you are obviously not defending the system.

I would have to add here for emphasis, that that would also include volunteering... For example, a good one...one that some guy here has told us about in another thread... www.joinrudy2008.com ...where volunteering IS campaigning for his virtues, supporting him, supporting the system.

I'm with Dr. Peikoff..."I will not vote for any Republican until the party repudiates its affiliation with Christianity."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those interested, the following question and answer was posted on Leonard Peikoff's website:

"Q: Rudy Giuliani seems to be the least disgusting Republican presidential candidate in many years. What are your thoughts of his candidacy?

A: All I know about Mr. Giuliani as a candidate is that he has already softened his stands on abortion, immigration, and Iraq. This will hardly convince conservatives but will alienate liberals; it is the classic formula for going nowhere. The major reason, however, why I would not support Mr. Giuliani is his vicious behavior some years ago toward Michael Milken in the junk bond issue of Drexel Burnham. And even beyond this, I will not vote for any Republican until the party repudiates its affiliation with Christianity, if I live that long."

I hope that the reaction to this statement by Peikoff will not be as bitter as the last!

Oh, and...let's include this Q&A from said site:

Q: Why is it proper to vote? If I don’t believe that the current state has any moral, philosophical legitimacy, why should I condone this political process by voting (in any way), thereby giving my consent and helping to legitimize political power?

A: It is often advisable not to vote. But you are not supporting a system merely by voting for one of its candidates, any more than you are supporting a government post office by mailing a letter through it. In both cases, you are given no alternative. In the voting case, however, you are sometimes given a certain alternative: to select a major killer or a minor one. It is no endorsement of killing, or of the system in general, to support the latter man. Of course, if you go out and campaign for his virtue, you are supporting the system. But if, to the extent of your ability, you denounce our “mixed” system publicly, speak the truth about both candidates, but then urge people to vote for the lesser threat, strictly as a matter of self-defense and buying time, you are obviously not defending the system.

I would have to add here for emphasis, that that would also include volunteering... For example, a good one...one that some guy here has told us about in another thread... www.joinrudy2008.com ...where volunteering IS campaigning for his virtues, supporting him, supporting the system.

I'm with Dr. Peikoff..."I will not vote for any Republican until the party repudiates its affiliation with Christianity."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big hurdle Guiliani faces is the GOP Primary.

Originally he spoke of appointing "constructionist" judges, apparently hoping that the uber-Christians would assume he meant "anti Roe-Wade" judges. (SCOTUS nominations are extremely important to those Christians.) His bluff was called when it was revealed that he'd contributed to Planned Parenthood. Guiliani probably realized he couldn't play the Christians for suckers any longer, because when he explained his contribution, he also added that a "constructionist" could well be a judge who thinks precedent is important in the case of Roe-Wade (viz. a "pro Roe-Wade" judge).

The only reason the uber-Christians will vote for his nomination is if they think nobody else in the GOP can win the election.

One has to see how he continues to position himself. [And one also has to see what else happens -- for example, a surprise SCOTUS vacancy being filled by Bush might change the calculation.] However, if it comes close to the GOP primary and the uber-Christians are arrayed against Guiliani, then I will be rooting for him. Though I dislike him, if it becomes a Christian vs. Guiliani battle, and if the Christians lose, I think it could lead the GOP to rely less on the Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The big hurdle Guiliani faces is the GOP Primary.

Rudy Giuliani's prospects in the GOP primary actually appear to be quite good mainly because the religious right vote will be divided amongst Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, Tom Tancredo and possibly even John McCain and/or Mitt Romney. On the other hand, if a Republican-inclined individual wants a secular candidate who is generally in favor of free market principles (at present, it really seems that Rudy has distanced himself from the Michael Milken prosecution days) all they have is Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul. Such Republicans who want a candidate who will also aggressive engage terrorists will only have Rudy.

As long as all of these other contendors who are splitting the religious conservative vote remain in the GOP primary races, Rudy Giuliani's chances look really good. The real issue is how long will many of them choose to keep on campaigning. Even if the only candidates remaining by Super Tuesday are Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Brownback, Huckabee and Paul, I perceive that the anti-Giuliani vote will be pretty divided amongst the other five.

At present, I am glad that the GOP primary race did not embrace Instant Run-off Voting, as that scheme would probably push Giuliani out of contention. :lol:

If Fred Thompson joins the race, he could jeopardize Giuliani. Many Republicans are enthusiastically encouraging him to join the fray under the perception that he is a present-day Ronald Reagan.

Edited by DarkWaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you think the field will really narrow drastically come decision-time?

Thinking a little more, if fast forwarded to the day of the first primaries with the present selection of announced candidates, perhaps the field would narrow to Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney come Super Tuesday. Under this circumstance, it still seems unlikely that the anti-Giuliani vote would agree between McCain or Romney to the extent where one of them would accumulate a more momentous campaign than what Rudy's would evolve into.

The 2004 Democratic primary had eight candidates still campaigning going into the Iowa caucus in 2004. If the Republicans have about the same number stick around until the first few primaries, I think Rudy will get an early lead mainly because his opposition is so divided.

Fred Thompson's entry could potentially change all of this but I am still skeptical that he has enough starpower to compete with he who was affectionately called America's Mayor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
many Republicans today are also in favor of massive government expansion, are anti-business and are championing a war of self-sacrifice in Iraq while refusing to acknowledge the threat of Islamic Totalitarianism.

But Democrats are for even more massive government expansion (if Hillary gets elected - socialized medicine is a reality) are even more anti-business (socialism in bed with environmentalism). Yes, they want out of Iraq but what is that they offer policy-wise themselves when it comes to international politics? I watched the debate last night - and I don't even know. All I herd was - "we will withdraw our troops and instead use diplomacy."

Edited by ~Sophia~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Democrats are for even more massive government expansion (if Hillary gets elected - socialized medicine is a reality) ... I watched the debate last night...
I caught the first half of the debate and they did a good job of being disgusting. Assuming Democrats keep Congress, some further move toward socialized medicine is very likely. The issue of "health care reform" seems to have gathered a fair amount of popular support. Even a GOP president like Romney would probably not veto some such move (after all, he's proud of what he did in Mass.).

On the issue of socialized medicine, Guiliani is good. He has been speaking about Bush's recent idea, where individuals get large tax-deductions for medical expenses. Something like that could be the start of a turn-around in U.S. healthcare; but, I can't imagine the Democratic Congress passing any such measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I caught the first half of the debate and they did a good job of being disgusting. Assuming Democrats keep Congress, some further move toward socialized medicine is very likely. The issue of "health care reform" seems to have gathered a fair amount of popular support. Even a GOP president like Romney would probably not veto some such move (after all, he's proud of what he did in Mass.).

On the issue of socialized medicine, Guiliani is good. He has been speaking about Bush's recent idea, where individuals get large tax-deductions for medical expenses. Something like that could be the start of a turn-around in U.S. healthcare; but, I can't imagine the Democratic Congress passing any such measure.

I caught the second half of the Republican debate tonight. He spoke against socialized medicine, identified Islamic Fundamentalism as a serious threat to Western values and Iran as its source, was pro-choice and pro-legal immigration.

Was anyone bothered by anything he said tonight (especially in the first half which I did not have a chance to watch) ?

Edited by ~Sophia~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a comprehensive column by Rudy Giuliani on Real Clear Politics that nicely delineates his stance on foreign policy.

Executive Summary:

  • He correctly identifies the enemy as "radical Islamic fascism." The adjective "radical" seems superfluous in my opinion, but this is much better than calling the enemies something vague and unassertive like terrorists.

  • He indicates that our enemies must be aggressively confronted.

  • When describing American values, he says things such as our great economy and inalienable rights. Most politicians would incorrectly focus on "equal opportunity" or "democracy".

  • His reasoning for remaining in Iraq is mediocre. Simply put, he claims that we should maintain our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent these nations from falling under the influence of our enemies such as Iran and Al Qaeda. Then it sounds like we should be attacking the political, financial and ideological sources of our enemy combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan!

  • He correctly indicates that bestowing a nation with democratic elections will not automatically make it a free country. He indicates that security and safety of the residents must come first. This sounds like he is suggesting individual rights must come first. Another surprisingly good observation for a modern politician.

  • He correctly indicates that offering foreign aid does not lead to economic development.

  • No where does he mention anything about Americans having a duty to serve others or having to make sacrifices. Contrast this to the rhetoric of the current President.

Reading this article reasserts my belief that he is the best presidential candidate available. For those of you interested in these topics, I recommend reading this for yourself.

A more thorough discussion:

Unfortunately, he starts off by suggesting that the United States must "balance idealism and realism". In rhetoric, this sounds like a political instance of the mind-body dichotomy. Nevertheless, we must recognize that he is not a philosopher and probably could use some tutoring on the more rigorous points in metaphysics and epistemology. Leaving semantics aside, the spirit of his essay appears to be very good for a modern politician.

In particular, I like how in the opening section:

1.) He repeatedly lauds the United States for its great economy. In my present context of knowledge concerning Mr. Giuliani, I see this as another promotion for Capitalism.

2.) He specifically mentions an American ideal to be the belief that all humans have inalienable rights. He mentions that these rights come from God (but we will never have a major presidential candidate say otherwise anytime soon) and he unfortunately does not specify what these rights are. Overall, this is still good that he extols individual rights as an American ideal. He could have instead defined America as a place where everyone has "equal opportunity" or mistaken a democratic electoral process to be the defining American achievement.

Pretty early in the column he correctly identifies the enemy the civilized world is up against:

The first step toward a realistic peace is to be realistic about our enemies. They follow a violent ideology: radical Islamic fascism, which uses the mask of religion to further totalitarian goals and aims to destroy the existing international system. These enemies wear no uniform. They have no traditional military assets. They rule no states but can hide and operate in virtually any of them and are supported by some.

Above all, we must understand that our enemies are emboldened by signs of weakness. Radical Islamic terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, the Khobar Towers facility in Saudi Arabia in 1996, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. In some instances, we responded inadequately. In others, we failed to respond at all. Our retreat from Lebanon in 1983 and from Somalia in 1993 convinced them that our will was weak.

As previously stated, the adjective "radical" seems a little superfluous. However, given his extensive list of examples, I think he has correctly conceptualized who are enemy is.

His reasoning for keeping our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan comes off as a little incomplete.

We cannot predict when our efforts will be successful. But we can predict the consequences of failure: Afghanistan would revert to being a safe haven for terrorists, and Iraq would become another one -- larger, richer, and more strategically located. Parts of Iraq would undoubtedly fall under the sway of our enemies, particularly Iran, which would use its influence to direct even more terror at U.S. interests and U.S. allies than it does today.

If his reason to remain in Iraq is to prevent them from falling under the influence of the Iranian government or Al Qaeda, then why should we not focus our military attention on the Iranian government or Al Qaeda's bases in the tribal region of Pakistan?

He mentions a lot of specific technological and procedural innovations to strengthen defense in the section "A Stronger Defense". I will not list them here. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that Rudy Giuliani is taking the issues of national and homeland defense very seriously. Serious enough to have a pretty specific agenda.

His position on Iran is vague and unfortunately a little underwhelming:

Diplomacy should never be a tool that our enemies can manipulate to their advantage. Holding serious talks may be advisable even with our adversaries, but not with those bent on our destruction or those who cannot deliver on their agreements.

Iran is a case in point. The Islamic Republic has been determined to attack the international system throughout its entire existence: it took U.S. diplomats hostage in 1979 and seized British sailors in 2007 and during the decades in between supported terrorism and murder. But Tehran invokes the protections of the international system when doing so suits it, hiding behind the principle of sovereignty to stave off the consequences of its actions. This is not to say that talks with Iran cannot possibly work. They could -- but only if we came to the table in a position of strength, knowing what we wanted.

Here he explains how spreading Democracy is only good if individuals are safe and secure. This is good, as it suggests that Mr. Giuliani realizes how securing individual rights is more important than allowing individuals to vote for their favorite Islamic Fascist.

[D]emocracy cannot be achieved rapidly or sustained unless it is built on sound legal, institutional, and cultural foundations. It can only work if people have a reasonable degree of safety and security. Elections are necessary but not sufficient to establish genuine democracy. Aspiring dictators sometimes win elections, and elected leaders sometimes govern badly and threaten their neighbors. History demonstrates that democracy usually follows good governance, not the reverse. U.S. assistance can do much to set nations on the road to democracy, but we must be realistic about how much we can accomplish alone and how long it will take to achieve lasting progress.

I particularly love his assessment on the Israel-Palestine conflict:

The election of Hamas in the Palestinian-controlled territories is a case in point. The problem there is not the lack of statehood but corrupt and unaccountable governance. The Palestinian people need decent governance first, as a prerequisite for statehood. Too much emphasis has been placed on brokering negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians -- negotiations that bring up the same issues again and again. It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism. Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel. America's commitment to Israel's security is a permanent feature of our foreign policy.

Here he essentially promotes Capitalism (better than any other major candidate does):

Other nations have found that following the U.S. model -- with low taxes, sensible regulations, protections for private property, and free trade -- brings not only national wealth but also national strength.

Here he correctly indicates how offering foreign aid will not lead to economic development:

Foreign aid can help overcome specific problems, but it does not lead to lasting prosperity because it cannot replace trade. Private direct investment is the best way to promote economic development.

and a great sounding finish where he implies that he will aggressively combat enemies:

Above all, we have learned that evil must be confronted -- not appeased -- because only principled strength can lead to a realistic peace.

Like most long speeches by major Presidential candidates, this column will have a bit of a Barnum Effect. Nevertheless, I think we can easily say as an individual, Rudy Giuliani is the best candidate available. Again, there is a lot in the article. For those of you who are interested, I recommend reading it for yourself.

Edited by DarkWaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is clear to me that Rudolph Giuliani, his past mistakes notwithstanding, is the best presidential candidate in decades. This is clear if one looks at the principles implicit in his ideas.

I won't go as far as to say that anyone who disagrees knows nothing about Objectivism, but the issue is pretty straightforward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a comprehensive column by Rudy Giuliani on Real Clear Politics that nicely delineates his stance on foreign policy.
Having read the article, I have a question. Imagine that the twins of Cheney and Rumsfeld were a new President/Vice-President team trying to win the 2008 election. Would you find them saying much that is different from what Guliani says in that article, specifically about the Iraq war and terrorism? I'm not even sure that Guliani comes off as more aggressive that they; it is the luxury of being a candidate that one can talk a little more aggressively than one will actually be able to act. He wants to continue the Iraq fight, and even create a new corp to focus on "rebuilding". He talks America first, and bashes the U.N., but is careful to say we must use International institutions.

If I were to summarize Guliani's likely strategy whole Iraq/Iran/terrorism thing I would say: "More of the same".

Is that inaccurate? If so, why?

[i'd agree that he is more secular than Bush; but, since his article is mainly about Iraq etc., I'd like to focus on that aspect first.]

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having read the article, I have a question. Imagine that the twins of Cheney and Rumsfeld were a new President/Vice-President team trying to win the 2008 election. Would you find them saying much that is different from what Guliani says in that article, specifically about the Iraq war and terrorism? I'm not even sure that Guliani comes off as more aggressive that they; it is the luxury of being a candidate that one can talk a little more aggressively than one will actually be able to act. He wants to continue the Iraq fight, and even create a new corp to focus on "rebuilding". He talks America first, and bashes the U.N., but is careful to say we must use International institutions.

If I were to summarize Guliani's likely strategy whole Iraq/Iran/terrorism thing I would say: "More of the same".

Is that inaccurate? If so, why?

I think this is a very important question.

To reiterate, I do not think his position on the war in Iraq is stellar. In the article discussed above, Rudy Giuliani articulates how we must continue fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan so as not to let these territories fall under the influence of either the Islamic Republic of Iran or Al Qaeda. However, he does not mention that Islamic Fascism must be combatted at its ideological, political and financial sources. A great candidate would insist that the United States must confront our enemies at their sources of power and not limit ourselves to fighting proxy wars within the borders of two nations.

How is Rudy Giuliani different from Dick Cheney and/or Donald Rumsfield? Perhaps I am just unaware of some of his statements, but I see less reality-evading from Rudy concerning foreign policy. Dick Cheney has made repeated statements that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes", most notably in May of 2005. Back in 2003, Dick Cheney confidently declared that our troops would be "greeted as liberators" in Iraq. The Vice President has apparently defended this claim in 2005.

Furthermore, the Vice President seemed to announce that Iraq would become an overwhelming success after a Democracy is established. On the other hand, in the article I provided in my previous post, Rudy Giuliani has explicitly indicated that a Democracy can only work if the individuals are first given security and safety. Personally, I would like to hear more details from Mr. Giuliani on this matter. It would be ideal if he drew a sharp distinction between a Democracy and a country that protects individual rights (which could have a democractically elected government). Nevertheless, this contrast still offers some hope that Rudy Giuliani will not advance the failed Neoconservative ideas that spreading Democracy is inherently good.

While we are discussing foreign policy, I think it would be helpful to discuss what a rational Commander in Chief should do to confront global enemies while knowing that half of Congress will oppose various aggressive confrontations. Surely a rational leader should not promise to lead certain campaigns that would be blocked by the Legislative Branch? This is probably a good discussion for another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Furthermore, the Vice President seemed to announce that Iraq would become an overwhelming success after a Democracy is established. On the other hand, in the article I provided in my previous post, Rudy Giuliani has explicitly indicated that a Democracy can only work if the individuals are first given security and safety. Personally, I would like to hear more details from Mr. Giuliani on this matter. It would be ideal if he drew a sharp distinction between a Democracy and a country that protects individual rights (which could have a democractically elected government). Nevertheless, this contrast still offers some hope that Rudy Giuliani will not advance the failed Neoconservative ideas that spreading Democracy is inherently good.

Another point is that Giuliani isn't a part of the Christian right. He's not as likely to see the Muslim religion as a "high jacked" religion, and he's less likely to have a favorable view of faith based ideas. On the whole, however, I think he's a man of our times, and so we can't expect all that much out of him.

Edited by Thales

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My worry is that the differences you point to are chiefly differences between what an incumbent would say "things are going fine, .... improving.... be patient" versus what a candidate would say. For that matter, going into this fight, Bush too painted a bolder picture, naming Iran and others as enemies and saying things like "you're either with us or against us".

On the Iraq-war front, my worry is that Guiliani has no new strategic ideas. Nor does he have any major strategic differences from the current administration. So, he will try to do the same thing, but better. He prides himself as someone who can get things done, and might think that he can turn the situation around where Bush could not. If this is so, I believe it's a false hope.

I also suspect that he thinks he would be better at articulating the case to the public, to get people to support the Iraq war. I think this may be true initially. However, even if he can drum up support at home, that won't last very long if the Iraq war continues unchanged.

An important question to ask of any candidate who is for continuing the Iraq war as it is being waged now is: do they support a draft? I hope Guiliani gets asked this question.

As for what a rational President would do with a Congress like the present one, I'd say that for starters he has to make his case about the right strategy. I want to see a candidate who says that the status quo cannot continue: we cannot be in Iraq out of fear that Iran will be too strong; we have to take that bull by the horns. Guiliani does make a couple of good points about Iran in that article, saying that they are evil and should not be allowed to hide behind the mask of sovereignty.

I think a rational C-in-C would have a "Plan B" which would revolve around a withdrawal from Iraq in a way that

  • severely cripples the Shia militia,
  • increases power of the Sunni (including the Ba'athists)
  • guarantees Kurdish power in their own region
  • maintains a credible threat against Iran (e.g. some US bases along the Iranian border)

However, I would not expect a C-in-C to be even mentioning a plan-B except after trying really hard to gather support to overthrow the rulers in Tehran.

[Added: Unfortunately, I don't see any other Republicans, nor any Democrats who have a decent plan on Iraq.]

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consistent with Objectivist principles?

Best candidate in Decades?

State sponsored abortions?

How could a lack of government intervention "violate the constitutional rights" of anyone?

Why should the government have a right to steal my money and give it to irresponsible women?

Health care "reform" for Rudy means "giving more people access to it" (intentionally left vague) through access to insurance? What right does the government have to decide who deserves healthcare, or who DESERVES access to health insurance? Answer: None

Juliani is the antithesis of the Objectivist position of Lazzie Faire on this issue...

The Lazzie Faire approach WOULD be to leave it a lone completely, stop regulating it and let the market balance itself.

Rudy Juliani is going to mishandle the war in the same fashion it's currently being mishandled. He's not explicitly committed to declaring War in the way Ron Paul is, and he will keep us entangled all over the world indefinitely in the name of defeating an enemy that doesn't exist.

It's a totalitarian scare tactic... hitler used it against the russians... it worked... bush used it against Iraq... it worked... Juliani is campaigning on it... it's not working... They're not dedicated to maintaining self defense... they are dedicated to remaining entangled overseas for as long as possible.

Ron Paul: Declare the War (unlike Vietnam and Iraq) and Win it!

Juliani is a Neo-Con

You can bet we won't declare war on Iran when Juliani plunges us into that entanglement... but we'll be there for a decade instead of Crushing them and leaving (which is what Ron Paul would do).

Can you imagine all of the limitations imposed on our military being imposed once again on us (as they were in Vietnam and in Iraq) in Iran? Thats a much bigger project than Iraq... Declare War, Remove the Limitations on the military, GET IT DONE.

Juliani Won't.

Juliani is a vote for more of the same indecisive garbage and recession of freedoms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InsKt6CtrTw

this is whats up

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sct0k5IfuBI

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlDbRa4j2AA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Health care "reform" for Rudy means "giving more people access to it" (intentionally left vague) through access to insurance? What right does the government have to decide who deserves healthcare, or who DESERVES access to health insurance? Answer: None

Juliani is the antithesis of the Objectivist position of Lazzie Faire on this issue...

The Lazzie Faire approach WOULD be to leave it a lone completely, stop regulating it and let the market balance itself.

Rudy has never spoken of any Government funding of health care.

And the fact that you spell it wrong, kind of shows me your true knowledge on, what did you call it, " Lazzie Faire " free markets?

Rudy Juliani is going to mishandle the war in the same fashion it's currently being mishandled. He's not explicitly committed to declaring War in the way Ron Paul is, and he will keep us entangled all over the world indefinitely in the name of defeating an enemy that doesn't exist.

It's a totalitarian scare tactic... hitler used it against the russians... it worked... bush used it against Iraq... it worked... Juliani is campaigning on it... it's not working... They're not dedicated to maintaining self defense... they are dedicated to remaining entangled overseas for as long as possible.

Paul will wage no war on any Islamic nation, especially Iran. He has stated his beiief of them as a " non-threat ", and even being wronged by America!

Furthermore, Ron Paul is most undoubtably a proponent of the Just War Theory.

Ron paul will not wage a war and win it, because he seeks to dismantle our very defense system by cutting military spending and abolishing the CIA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is clear to me that Rudolph Giuliani, his past mistakes notwithstanding, is the best presidential candidate in decades. This is clear if one looks at the principles implicit in his ideas.

I won't go as far as to say that anyone who disagrees knows nothing about Objectivism, but the issue is pretty straightforward.

Really? Is it because he uses scare tactics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rudy has never spoken of any Government funding of health care.

I just gave you a link. Visit it again..

His 89' Opinion hasn't changed..

and another

He believes it to be, "morally wrong." "I hate abortion."

But encouraging states to steal from you, through taxation, and give your money to irresponsible would-be mothers is tolerable I guess.

And the fact that you spell it wrong, kind of shows me your true knowledge on, what did you call it, " Lazzie Faire " free markets?

Insults are not arguments.

Feel like a big boy pointing out spelling errors?

Paul will wage no war on any Islamic nation, especially Iran. He has stated his belief of them as a " non-threat ", and even being wronged by America!

1) Iran is a third world country without a significant military. Are you aware of what that means?

It means the only impact you can have in that country is turning into a police state for a few years like Iraq, and then giving them "the gift" of democracy, i.e., doing absolutely no good at all except giving them a convenient nicely packaged enemy figure to unite against and actually fight.

2) They are a decade away from developing nuclear technology.

All of the, "OMG They're Making NUKES OMG" is sensationalism, and you've apparently bought into it.

We're not going to war with Iran. If we do our forces will have attached to them as restrictive (if not more so) rules of engagement similar to what they now have in Iraq, Afghanistan, and what they once had placed on them in Vietnam.

[gvideo]http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-7456931596878368112&hl=en[/gvideo]

I agree with Ron Paul, we're likely to get another "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, and it will likely occur to affect public opinion, swaying it into largely supporting a war with Iran - where none is necessary.

You're blurring the difference between moderate Islam and radical Islam, by allowing your hatred of faith based religious ideologies clump them together. I agree they are equally terrible, but not equally threatening.

Not to mention if we do go to war we'll do it in the name of, "Spreading Democracy."

Instead of anything worthwhile.

Thats working out well in Iraq btw.

Fact: Iran should be delt with.

Fact: U.S. foreign policy is incapable of dealing with Iran correctly, and we will exacerbate the problem by getting involved militarily.

Furthermore, Ron Paul is most undoubtedly a proponent of the Just War Theory.

Ron Pauls overall foreign policy is non-intervention and containment.

When war is necessary, i.e., in self-defense... Ron Paul is for Declaring War instead of rushing into a bullshit war, like the war in Iraq, and winning it quickly.

Did I mention how well thats working out?

Ron paul will not wage a war and win it,

Clearly you're a single issue kinda voter, which makes you really informed.

Fact: Neither will Juliani wage a war to win it, but Juliani WILL rush into Iran and exacerbate the problem, only to find himself restricted beyond belief in our ability to solve the problem.

because he seeks to dismantle our very defense system by cutting military spending and abolishing the CIA!

The CIA spends more of it's time taping your phones, monitoring your internet activity, and generally invading your privacy in every way it can creatively imagine, than it does gaining useful actionable intelligence.

Wanna know what paranoia looks like? Behold:

graph1.gif

The graph is not unique, and it is that imbalanced and disproportionate to the rest of the worlds spending.

Anyway, war with Iran is not the most important issue in this election. The opportunity Ron Paul offers is a unique one, to limit the size and scope of government, is of much greater value.

Juliani's platform consists entirely of war.

Ron Paul gets into all of the communistic aspects that have injected themselves into our once honorable system of government.

Ron Pauls Platform:

No Fed

No Welfare

A way out of Social Security

No Regulation on health care

No rogue wars

No Fiat currency

No 16th ammendment

Anti-New World Order on every front.

Juliani's got nothing but lip service for any of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...