Once again, Mr. Richert nails it.  I hear “pro-life” Catholics constantly using Kerry as an example of the kind of a Catholic politician that it is a sin to vote for and Giuliani is never mentioned.  If, as seems likely, Giuliani gets the presidential nomination, I’ll be especially interested to hear what Republican shill Fr. Frank Pavone has to say.

Right on, Scott. Being played for a sucker does not pay
in politics. You never get anything if you go around
wearing a T-shirt that says “I enjoy being bamboozzled”

Scott,
I would make the same decisions if given the
choice between the two current frontrunners for
their parties’ presidential nomination.

This is exactly where voting for “the lesser of two evils” leads.  Even Frodo couldn’t destroy the ring in the end.

Both choices would be evil.  They would be equally evil, equally bankrupting, equally bloody, equally against freedom.  Vote for neither. Hope for neither either.

An excellent piece by Scott.

It is mind-boggling to me that I should have to vote for a Protestant in order to support a pro-life candidate, when there are Roman Catholics in the race.

Excellent, Scott!

Perceptive post.

Giuliani is deadly on more than one account--his refusal to defend marriage (or live up to it)is a liberal dream come true.

A vote for either Giuliani or Clinton can be not be defended. The Republican party will be shocked at the percentage of their core who elect not to elect. The GOP needs to learn that they cannot see-saw the voters between an obvious evil and a tacitly evil choice.

I am not sure I can share your assessment.  At least the portions of St. Blogs that I frequent seem pretty staunchly against Rudy, precisely for his abortion stand.  There may be those out there who do support him no matter what, but there are plenty in St. Blogs who don’t.  If your point is simply they missed this mnewstory about the Bishop, I hadn’t heard it either until you brought it up.  Kudos for the Bishop.  I am sure many in St. Blogs would agree.

I think you need to look again.  Not everybody can keep us with a 24/7 news cycle.

@c matt:

I’ll be happy to be proved wrong on this one.  But I seriously doubt that, even after a few days, there will be a volume of posts in St. Blog’s praising Archbishop Burke that’s commensurate with those praising him in 2004.

And, yes, there are many conservative Catholic bloggers who have been critical of Giuliani, as I mentioned.  The question is what they’re going to do when push comes to shove, and Rudy’s up against Hillary.

Their reaction--or lack thereof--to Archbishop Burke’s statement is, to my mind, a pretty good indication of the stand they’ll take a year from now.

Scott, I just put it on my blog, The Blue Boar.

http:.//theblueboar.blogspot.com

-Sean

Well, I’m going to half-heartedly defend St. Blog’s.

I think if you polled the folks in St. Blog’s, you’d find few who plan to support Giuliani.  But the difference this year is that there’s nobody with a shot of winning who actually deserves support.  Sure some of the Republican frontrunners claim to be pro-life, but all of them support the Iraq war and torture, oops I mean enhanced interrogation techniques and pre-emptively nuking Iran, etc. etc.

So although Archbishop Burke does deserve more praise than he’s received, I think the resaon he’s getting it is an indifference for both parties, not any affection for Rudy.

Or maybe I just speak for myself.

That said:

VOTE FOR RON PAUL!

Er, in my haste, I made some dumb typos, most notably, I meant to say in the third paragraph:

So although Archbishop Burke does deserve more praise than he’s received, I think the reason he’s NOT getting it is indifference for both parties, not any affection for Rudy.

@Chris:

Please don’t misunderstand.  I didn’t say that people “plan to support Giuliani,” or that they have “any affection for Rudy.” I said that the silence from St. Blog’s “is frightening confirmation of the extent to which politically active conservative Catholics in America have become enslaved to the Republican Party.”

I fully expect to continue to hear criticism of Giuliani, right up to the day he’s nominated.  Then, a significant portion of that criticism will go away.  Another portion will continue, but be accompanied by the arguments I listed (basically, he’s the lesser of two evils).

What I doubt that we’ll see--and again, I will be very happy to be proved wrong--is a significant number of politically active conservative Catholics (like the folks in St. Blog’s) standing up and saying, “Hell, no, we won’t vote for either one--and neither should you.”

I didnt blog it, because it isn’t in keeping with the
aim of my blog. But I did email it to everyone I know.I see it has been hidden on the AP wire.

Richard
http://lefleurdelystoo.blogspot.com/

@Sean:

Great!  Mark Shea has as well.

Here’s a little challenge, for those who think I’m being to harsh on the folks in St. Blog’s: Send your favorite St. Bloggers a link to this piece, and ask them to put up a post praising Archbishop Burke and pledging never to vote for Giuliani under any circumstances.

Let’s see how many will do so.

@John J. Simmins:

I’m continuing to cruise through St. Blog’s, looking for signs.  Please post links to those blogs that have reported the story.  I think we should be praising every Catholic blogger who’s willing to do so.

AmericanPapist has a good post: http://www.americanpapist.com/2007/10/burke-vs-giuliani-and-matching-wits.html

Here’s a link to a CatholicBlogs.com search for “burke giuliani”: http://www.catholicblogs.com/search/burke_giuliani

At this moment, there are 17 stories, but from only 13 blogs.

I do see your point, Scott, but I think it is more like some others have said - lack of interest in any candidate rather than support for the Rude Due.  I can gaurantee you I will not be voting for Rudy, regardless of who the Dems put up.

“If Hillary is elected, at least pro-life Catholics won’t be tempted to trust her, let alone regard her as any kind of an ally, and they might start acting, once again, in accordance with their beliefs.”

This reminds me of an interesting statement I
heard James Bovard make in an interview once—
along the lines of things being better under
(Bill) Clinton, because at least then the
Republican Party acted as a quasi-genuine party of
opposition.

I linked to your article om my blog, Scott. But I am not a member of St. Blogs....

http://teaattrianon.blogspot.com/2007/10/archbishop-burke-vs-guiliani.html

On the Protestant front, James Dobson and Tony Perkins have come out and said that they will not support Rudy. I expect more high profile Protestant Christian conservatives to do the same. The recent meeting of the Council for National Policy has made a lot of news. Ironically, while a Rudy nomination would indicate a lack of political power on the part of Christian conservatives, it could be the best thing that ever happened to the Constitution Party.

For many “conservative” Catholic commentators seem to think that the Catholic faith is an intellectual school of thought or philosophy or ideological persuasion or cultural identification or even a religion rather than the faith handed down by Jesus Christ to the Apostles.

This is not to imply that these Catholics do not have a true love of Christ and are not good souls.  However, for many bloggers the Catholic Church seems to be more of a neat and prestigious affiliation rather than “something more”.  Thus, they seem to the come into the true Catholic Church because how one can interpret the Church as conservative or traditional.  The Church and its teacher almost by default then are defined by politics. When the Church does not conform to the view the bloggers espouse the view is passed over or in the case of the Novak and Weigel, reinterpreted.

Excellent article! I’ve linked: http://orientem.blogspot.com/2007/10/hillary-in-08.html

As the venerable Prof. Clyde Wilson asked recently, “Can anyone tell me any way in which the positions of Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are different on any important issue?”

If St. Blog’s were the Catholic Church I’d go into schism..

The closing line (and link) is apropos.  It reminds me of a line from a Fred Gipson novel which also applies to Il Duce’s pretense at conservatism:
“Hang tassels on a swaybacked jackass and some fool will swear it’s a race horse.”

Republican voters are pathetically eager to be fooled.  Look at how they flocked to W and still haven’t abandoned him.

Hagee was on Tucker tonight and said he would support Giuliani in the general if he is the nominee. Ugh! Hagee is a buffoon.

NewsMax has a story on Archbishop Burke. I will not link because it messes up the formatting. Just go there to find it.

Hagee is a heretic from the traditional PROTESTANT perspective.  I would also point out that many of these non-traditional “Protestants” are, as John Lukacs describes them in his book “The New Republic”, more like medieval peasants than historical Protestants.  For one thing, they ignore the teaching of Jesus that His Kingdom is not of this world.

“Hagee is a heretic from the traditional PROTESTANT perspective.”

His “dual covenant” theory is heretical.

As I posted on the recent other topic, the American branch of the Church is in utter disarray, and Rome is nowhere to be found.

The Church provides abortions in Connecticut, yet condemns Rudy Giuliani for supporting them across the border in New York.

American Catholics feel free to make up their own catechism as they go along.

Pro-abortion politicians step up and recieve Holy Communion, when if the Church had a spine and any self-respect it would have excommunicated every single one of them.

The Church is in chaos, disarray, disorder - it is adrift, leaderless, helter-skelter. And again, where is Rome?

Either American Catholicism gets a real Captain to steer it through troubled waters, or it will sink as surely as European Protestantism.

Bishop Burke’s comments may be a non-story, hence the lack of Catholic response. Guiliani isn’t Catholic in any conspicuous sense of the meaning of the word and isn’t even associated in the public’s mind with Caholicism.

I think it is interesting to note that the politicians and political elites who set the respective agendas for the Republican and Democratic parties are all so glaringly out of touch with their “base” that all across the political spectrum, from left to right, the average citizen feels completely betrayed by the people they’ve elected to office who are supposed to be supporting their views.  Conservatives are outraged that their long standing fight against abortion could be so casually set aside to further the candidacy of Rudy.  Liberals are disgusted with Congresses total lack of leadership on getting America out of Iraq, the reason most of them were elected in 2006, among other issues.  Only the most delusional Beltway insider would view Hilary Clinton as an authentic “liberal” or Rudy Guiliani as an authentic “conservative”.  They are both political opportunists whose lives have been devoted to pleasing lobbyists and campaign donors.  Hilary has never met a special interest or business lobby whose demands were too outrageous to reject and Rudy’s special talent is to take a tragedy (9/11) and make it into his own personal campaign commercial.

I think liberals and conservatives across America could probably solve some of our national problems over a weekend of negotiations and BBQ, to hell with the politicans.  How about this - we agree to end the war and dismantle the bloated military (also, no more “support the troops” stickers, this isn’t Germany in 1935, we should appreciate the military - not worship them) --- THEN we’ll outlaw abortion in America.  We can use all the money we’ve saved by cutting back on military expenses to build orphanages to take care of the “unwanted” children who’ll suddenly proliferate.  Sounds fair to me.

@John Gillis:

If your theory is correct, how do we account for the very different reaction to Archbishop Burke’s statement about Kerry in 2004?  Are you saying that Kerry was associated in the public’s mind with Catholicism?

Elena (Tea at Trianon) and Joshua (The Western Confucian), thanks for posting about this.  Your blogs remain two of the best Catholic blogs out there, and I read them faithfully every day.

As a pro-life Catholic Republican, I have no love for Giuliani, and of course he should be refused Communion. He’s providing public scandal and is scorning the precepts of the Church.. Duh.

And yes, I have told pollsters in the past why I wouldn’t be voting for Giuliani, and the pro-life thing was pretty much it. (That and his treating his nearet and dearest like crud.)

But seeing as I never heard of this happening before this very minute, and seeing as how my computer is slightly dead, it’s difficult for me to have commented on the thing, much less danced about with glee.

@Maureen:

Well, at least you can dance now!  Thanks for the comment.

Any Catholic who votes for Guliani owes John Kerry a big apology.

Then they deserve to burn in Hell

My take on this issue is that while it would be depressing to see Giuliani get the nomination, voting for him might be the lesser of evils. After all, it is certain that Hillary’s Supreme Court nominees will attempt to reinvent American social morality, but it is not certain that Giuliani’s nominees will do so. Giuliani is a thoughtless liberal, while Hillary is a thoughtful one. The former can be pressured and persuaded to head into a more conservative direction, but not the latter. Or so it seems to me.

@Ken,

by calling Giuliani a thoughtless liberal you have almost
convicned me to choose Hillary. A thoughless person is
a disaster waiting to happen, no matter what his or her
ideology.  A wicked person can be trusted to know when
his or her throat is being cut and change behavior
accordinging, a fool will not know, and bring disaster
on his head and on everyone else.

Or, as the Talmud says, “Evil may repent, but Stupid is\
forever”

“Giuliani is a thoughtless liberal, while Hillary is a thoughtful one.”

Nope.  There is no liberality in Nurse Ratched.  And I wouldn’t even call H Clinton “thoughtful.” Devious, yes, but not thoughtful.

@ Scott P. Richert (to John Gillis): “Are you saying that Kerry was associated in the public’s mind with Catholicism?

If he is, he might be on to something—insofar as Kerry made a point of showing off his purported Catholicism, going to Mass and receiving Holy Communion (with press in tow) during his campaign. As detestable as Giuliani is, I don’t think he makes any pretense of practicing the Faith.

Adriana,
“...by calling Giuliani a thoughtless liberal you have almost convinced me to choose Hillary.”

This is the nihilism that comes with “ideological purity”. Vote for a 3rd Party candidate or don’t vote, but to pull the lever for the High Priestess for the Culture of Death is warped.

All,
What is the point of this thread?
That most pro-lifers are really frauds, GOP hacks and already in Guiliani’s back pocket? And the evidence for all this is that there hasn’t been an outcry of support for Archbishop Burke in some quarters? Damn, purges generally require more than that, no? Is this thread driven by the fact that it is easier to lob grenades at allies than to transform our culture?

Let’s archive this thread and see if all this criticism of fellow pro-lifers is
justified?

My prediction; if Rudy is the nominee he will go down in flames and everyone will know it was due to the 3rd Party that rose up in opposition to his stand on abortion.

The hard part is what comes after the election. We’re going to need to build amidst the ruins, yet we may just settle for tearing down those who wrongly compromised with the GOP.

We’re going to need a lot more than being told we should subscribe to Chronicles.

@Kevin

Do not get into your high horse, please. I was answering
to the previous poster in which he assumed (wrongfully,
it seems) that the only choices were between a fool and
a scoundrel.

And I am more terrified of fools than of scoundrels.

After all, there is not a single disaster in history
that did not beguin with what someone thought was a
good idea at a time.

“After all, there is not a single disaster in history that did not begin with what someone thought was a good idea at a time.”

Adriana,
Yep, and can’t think of a worse idea than rewarding evil to punish fools.

@Kevin

I was not thinking about punishing fools, since punishment
rarely does teach them anything. I was thinking about
denying them power.

An evil person can understand the principle of
self-preservetion, while a fool never does, which makes
a fool more dangerous.

As Juan Domingo Peron said “a fool causes more damage
than a wicked man”, which while hurtful to our moral
sensitivities, is sadly true. The Talmud also agree on
this (the quote being that Evil may repent, but Stupid
is forever).

Of course, it is much better not to have to choose
between either, but I was commenting on the case where
those were the alternatives were offered, and no other.
The trick is never to put yourself in a position where
that is the case, of course.

@Kevin:

“What is the point of this thread?
That most pro-lifers are really frauds, GOP hacks and already in Guiliani’s back pocket? And the evidence for all this is that there hasn’t been an outcry of support for Archbishop Burke in some quarters? Damn, purges generally require more than that, no? Is this thread driven by the fact that it is easier to lob grenades at allies than to transform our culture?”

Who are the allies being attacked?  Giuliani?  Other GOP leaders who have suckered the pro-life movement?  Or pro-lifers who have become so convinced that the GOP is on the side of the angels that they might consider voting for a rabid pro-abort?

“Let’s archive this thread and see if all this criticism of fellow pro-lifers is justified?”

Yes, let’s.  As I’ve stated several times, I will be happy to be proved wrong.  But I think I’m less likely to be proved wrong than you are, Kevin.  The likelihood of pro-lifers defecting to a third party is, sadly, small.

By the way, the whole point of my continuing discussion of these issues has been to point out that the political obsession is keeping us from transforming our culture.  Look at your own comments, Kevin: Every one of them is focused on the 2008 election, and the supposed revolt that will occur, and what politically will occur after that.  It was in that context on another thread that you suggested that those who don’t put much faith in politics were “defeatist” or “quietist” or somesuch, and it was in response to that that I suggested that you might read Chronicles, which is hardly defeatist, but which also understands, as apparently you do not, that there are no political solutions to cultural problems.

Sorry--I should have looked Kevin’s comment up before posting.  The term he used for those who have less faith in the political process than he does was “deserter.”

@Scott

Indeed, Kevin still believes in the political process,
as it is now, and I am afraid that he confuses a refusal
to participate in it **in the current conditions** with
a theoretical refusal to participate at all.

The fact is that there are good tactical reasons not to
participate, the main one is having acquired a reputation
as suckers. Once you have that you lose all power you
might have accumulated. You can get angry at betrayal,
but if there are no bad consequences for incurring your
anger, then you can get as angry as you wish and nothing
will change.

Perhaps it betrays some inherente biases of my own, but
my position in this is that the Republican Party deserves
to lose. They had all the power, the Presidency, both
Houses of Congress, and they squandered it away.

Unless there is a penalty for behaving as they did, they
will continue in their self-destructive ways. They are
badly in need of tough love.

Scott,
“The likelihood of pro-lifers defecting to a third party is, sadly, small.”

I think you’re out of touch with the grassroots. I live in the ‘burbs outside of NYC where Guiliani is a known entity. Pro-lifers here can’t stand him and will work for his defeat. Should we make this really interesting by means of a wager?

“...the political obsession is keeping us from transforming our culture.”

Scott, your comments are offered in a political context are they not? Are you saying as long as we are engaged in the political process our efforts to transform the culture are doomed? John Paul II forged an alliance of convenience with the Islamic states at the U.N. Was he wrong to pursue a political course of action?

“I suggested that you might read Chronicles, which is hardly defeatist, but which also understands, as apparently you do not, that there are no political solutions to cultural problems.”

The relationship between culture and politics is such that the rigid separation you want to make is impossible. Earlier I mentioned the crisis pregnancy centers that now outnumber abortion clinics as a great and noble cultural response. Yet even there, instruments of the State (Planning boards, Departments of Health, etc.etc.) can either suppress of support such endeavors. That’s called politics.

It goes without saying that the day we pass a Human Life Amendment would also be the day we wouldn’t need one. Keeping this issue at the center of the electoral is just one means, but a very good one, that allows us to chip away at the whole artifice known as the Culture of Death.

Saint Thomas More, pray for us.

If the original Roe converted…
Can we all pray daily for the conversion of our next
president. If God says no, even if enough of us pray,
then we know God only allows evil, if He can bring about a greater good.

@Kevin:

“I think you’re out of touch with the grassroots. I live in the ‘burbs outside of NYC where Guiliani is a known entity. Pro-lifers here can’t stand him and will work for his defeat.”

Or you might consider that you may be out of touch with the grassroots--that the area that you live in is exceptional, because Giuliani is a known entity there.

“Should we make this really interesting by means of a wager?”

<i>"Are you saying as long as we are engaged in the political process our efforts to transform the culture are doomed?”

What I am saying is that a preoccupation with the political process prevents people from recognizing the need to change the culture; and, if they do recognize it, it often convinces them that the main force for changing the culture for good has to be politics.

And that leads to people such as James Hitchcock arguing that we need to compromise with evil in order to do good.  Yet they never seem willing to place a limit beforehand on just how far they will compromise.  And so, as Mark Shea (who’s more optimistic than I am) has pointed out, there are conservative pro-life Catholics in St. Blog’s who are already trying to justify a vote for Giuliani, before he’s even received the nomination.

Even on this comment thread, we’ve seen commenters use some of the arguments that I mentioned in the post--again, before Giuliani’s been nominated.  (In that case, it appears I was wildly optimistic, because I thought that Catholics in thrall to the GOP wouldn’t start to use the arguments until after his nomination.)

Scott, I really think you are over-estimating the pro-life vote if you think it is close to the 19% or so which Perot collected in his first run.  Most polls I have seen indicate that single issue anti-abortion voters are about 6% of the electorate and single issue pro-abortion voters are about half that.  Three percent of the vote is decisive in close races but meaningless in house districts which have been gerrymandered safe for incumbents.  The prospects for ‘08 look increasingly grim for the Republicans and they are likely to lose big with any candidate, with or without the pro-life vote.  But that hardly means that nothing can be done about abortion.  During the last Clinton administration, the number of abortions performed in the US decreased substantially.  We don’t know if this has continued under Bush since no nationwide statistics have been gathered or published by the CDC since he became president.

@Kirt:

Actually, I was basing my statement on my reading of Kevin’s scenario.  He’s stated that he thinks we’ll see a pro-life defection from the GOP to a third party if Giuliani is nominated, and he’s indicated that, after the Republicans lose, the task will be to build this third party into something useful.  If the figures you cite are correct, then it just reinforces my point that this is all a pipe dream.

You can’t build a third party on six percent of the vote.

And I agree that the lack of political movement on abortion does not mean that nothing can be done about it.  However, as long as people keep thinking of pro-life activities only in terms of politics--or even mainly in terms of politics--little will get done.

Organizations such as Care Net, cofounded by my departed friend Harold O.J. Brown, have saved hundreds of thousands of unborn children’s lives precisely because they don’t focus their attention on politics.  Everyone who works for Care Net, I’m sure, votes pro-life; but more importantly, they live their principles.

@Adriana,

What I was thinking was that, if we assume liberalism is a self-defeating and ultimately self-destructive philosophy, as I do (and, please, no nonsense about “classical” liberalism, which is vacuity cubed--not that you, Adriana, are spewing that nonsense), then it’s better to be ruled by a half-baked or “thoughtless” liberal than by a fully-baked or “thoughtful” liberal. And that’s certainly true if the leader is going to be ruling our lives far down the road via Supreme Court appointments. Hillary is an ideologue--and to be an ideologue is to be thoughtful to a certain extent. So I think Hillary will be a lot worse than the relatively thoughtless non-ideologue, Rudy.

@Ken

I guess you and I disagree on the definition of
“thoughtful” and “thoughtless”. And in my opinon an
ideologue is “thoughtless” since he or she substitues
learned formulas for his or her own judgement and
common sense.

But, as I said, it is a matter of definition.

@Ken Zaretzke:

“So I think Hillary will be a lot worse than the relatively thoughtless non-ideologue, Rudy.”

I’m curious, Ken--why do you assume that Giuliani is a non-ideologue?

If thoughtful means wise or at least seeking wisdom, neither Hillary nor Rudy are thoughtful.  If it means scheming or conspiratorial, they both are.

Scott,
Here’s my prediction; a pro-life 3rd Party garners
between 6-10% of the vote leading to a GOP debacle.
Does that not qualify for my contention that the
national prolife grassroots will abandon Rudy? Do
we have a bet?

We have to remember too, a couple of things driving
some prolife equivocating with Guiliani. One, many
are terrified that instruments of the Patriot Act will
be used against pro-lifers by Hillary. And, second
many are accepting the premise that this is primarily
a cultural issue, giving up on political progess
regarding abortion and voting for the man they wrongly
think will protect them from Islam.

I know you think the dark times we live in may require
separating form most engagement, but I am not there
yet.

@Kevin:

“many are accepting the premise that this is primarily
a cultural issue, giving up on political progess
regarding abortion and voting for the man they wrongly
think will protect them from Islam.”

That’s rather odd reasoning.  I don’t know any pro-lifers who have become convinced that change is going to come primarily outside the political process who therefore decide to vote for pro-aborts.

Since you’ve given the range of 6-10 percent, let’s split the difference.  I’ll take your bet: No pro-life third party will garner 8 percent of the vote.

And I’ll be very happy to lose.

Scott,
I contend the very pro-lifers you assail as placing the GOP over principle do so because they have resigned themselves to a lack of progress on the policy side. This allows them to rationalize their support for Guiliani and men of his ilk.

We’re o; 8% vote for a 3rd Party ticket that is pro-life. Will other issues like the war, trade, immigration and taxes drive this party? Sure, but Ron Paul will do fine in his second general election campaign.

@Kevin:

“I contend the very pro-lifers you assail as placing the GOP over principle do so because they have resigned themselves to a lack of progress on the policy side. This allows them to rationalize their support for Guiliani and men of his ilk.”

But what do you base this on?  Again, all of the pro-lifers I know who “have resigned themselves to a lack of progress on the policy side” are no longer supporting the GOP at all, at least at the presidential level.

I don’t see anything in the writings of, to take a recent example, James Hitchcock to indicate that the reason he’s now “placing the GOP over principle” is because of “a lack of progress on the policy side.” In fact, quite the contrary: He seems to be blaming a lack of progress on the policy side on those who are less willing than he is to compromise.  (And, of course, he then turns that willingness to compromise into the chief pro-life credential.)

@Kevin

Weren’t you the one who was scandalized because of
voting for Al Gore, for more or less the same reasons
you adduce for excusing the unthinking support for the
GOP, even in the face of the treachery they have shown?

At least I had the excuse of personal dislike.

Scott,
The people you refer to are likley of the paleo
persuasion.

The folks at St. Blog’s are “mainstream”
and doing mental gymnastics to allow support for
Guiliani. A classic argument, to paraphrase; “we can’t
possibly build a culture of life, while threatened by
a mortal enemy in Islam.”

I had to endure a screed of this kind at my Knights
of Columbus recently. Naturally, what feeds this
delusion is despair in the political process.

Just like Europe in the 30’s. we’re going to see good
people seek refuge in evil systems. That to me is the
biggest threat to the pro-life side being marginalized
in the near future. Some will find cold comfort in the
armed doctrine of Guliani on th egrounds that he, not
Hillary will defend thew West.

@Kevin:

“A classic argument, to paraphrase; ‘we can’t
possibly build a culture of life, while threatened by
a mortal enemy in Islam.’ . . . Naturally, what feeds this
delusion is despair in the political process.”

I’m not sure that follows at all.  I no people exactly like that (even a few at my Latin Mass parish), and I think what it really indicates is too much emphasis on the political process.

All of the people I know who make those arguments get most of their “news” from FOX News, and they treat every illiterate pronouncement that emerges from the lips of President Bush with a respect that would make the oracle at Delphi blush.

They’re obsessed with the mortal enemy of Islam because they’ve been convinced by politicians and their media hacks to be so obsessed.  And the proof that their obsession stems from such sources is that their answer to the Muslim threat is not one based on the American interest and a Christian worldview (such as you find in Chronicles), but more war--continue the war in Iraq; start a war with Iran; applaud Israeli military action in Lebanon, even though Christians took the brunt of it.

Oops.  Obviously, “I no” should be “I know.”

Who edits the editor?

@Scott,

You asked why I think Guilaini is not an ideologue.
It’s partly a gut feeling, but mostly it’s his lack of
an overarching philosophy. MAYBE he is a neutralist
(anti-perfectionist--in the philosophical sense), and
if he is, you could call him an ideologue. But I see
no clear evidence that he is committed philosophically
or morally to a politics of neutralism. I think he’s a
thoughtless liberal in that sense. And I think that’s

. . . hit a wrong button. . . a RELATIVELY good thing. I
don’t want to see him nominated, but I’d vote for him
anyway. Lesser-of-evils, and all that.

Scott,
I understand and agree with you as to how we arrived
at this state. Though I will add, many of the
people driven into the orbit of FOX and the war
without end crowd did so because they naturally recoil
from the death wish that informs the Left.

Our task is to show them that Guiliani (and much of
the current GOP) is just another manifestation of the
culture of death and not a some temporary delaying
tactic against it.

I know you hope to lose our bet. Let us work to ensure
such an outcome, while sometimes differing in our
approaches.

Amen, Kevin.  Now, let’s get to work on Ken Zaretzke.

Ken Z.,
Guiliani’s election would be worse than Hillary in at least the following aspects;
* as the most prominent “Catholic” in public life (Madonna no longer counts) his Presidency would make a mockery of the faith of millions of Americans.
* he would have no obligation to do anything to advance the pro-life cause as he is not only hostile to it, but would not forgive all the flack he took from us during the campaign.
* his election would be hailed by the media as a defeat for pro-lifers and proof that the issue had been decided, once and for all.
* he would appoint his own hacks to positions of leadership in the GOP. The result; complete marginalization of pro-lifers within the party.
* While a formal and disciplined opposition to Hillary would emerge from a GOP anxious to build for the future, no such motive would exist within a party controlled by Guiliani. Professional pols would be delighted to shelve a moral issue that complicates their electoral strategies; “gotta have those socially liberal suburbanites in our pocket.”

Guiliani’s election would be nightmarish on many fronts, but for purposes of this conversation, his record as Mayor revealed an abiding contempt for traditional moral views. You will know more of his record in the coming months. 

For the sake of your own personal integrity, don’t even think of collaborating with this man. Instead, join the resistance and sleep better.

Scott, I didn’t say it would be easy.

@Kevin:

Very good--an excellent summary of the arguments.  You should have that printed on card stock for handing out to pro-lifers who are considering voting for Giuliani.

Scott,
Wait until you see the TV ads with Guiliani in drag! Even the country club set is going to have second thoughts.

@Kevin

Well, one thing we may be sure, our next President will
be wearing a dress....

Oh, I forgot. Hillary wears pant suits…

Adrianna,
Great call! Imagine the fun we can have with the
visuals and utterances these 2 candidates provide. May
have to revise my electoralk prediction to Ron Paul
winning with 39% of the vote.

@Kevin,

Very good points. I do indeed take them seriously. Have you been reading Ramesh Ponnuru, NR’s most estimable writer by far? He made some very similar points not so long ago in that magazine.

How likely is it that Giuliani, as president, would actually marginalize pro-lifers? I don’t know, but if Scott is right, as I firmly believe he is,to say that culture is much more important than politics, then surely the strength of pro-life ideas and arguments will prevent the marginalization of pro-lifers, no? Surely no one, including a president, can keep the truth forever hidden. Even trying to do so is likely to backfire. Moreover, how can you be sure Giuliani is unrelentingly hostile to Catholic values? Maybe he’s the confused victim of moral uncertainty. I am a pro-lifer (having imbibed it at the feet of Harold O.J. Brown in the ‘70s), but I happen to think there are respectable arguments for the other side. We shouldn’t consider pro-choicers to be either ignorant or morally reprehensible. I disagree with the idea that reason itself clearly informs us of the wrongness of abortion. Unfortunately(given that he is a Catholic), Giuliani seems to have bought into those pro-choice arguments (at what level of sophistication I have no idea). It’s up to us inhabitants of the culture to keep battling and trying to overcome secular moral beliefs with superior beliefs and arguments. This does not mean we should not worry about the effects of a Giuliani administration on the pro-life movement, just that it’s easy to make wrong and needlessly doomsaying predictions.

Finally, what about the Supreme Court? If Giuliani promises to appoint practitionerzs of judicial restraint, that’s good enough for me, since Hillary will never promise to appoint anyone who MIGHT overrule Roe v. Wade.

Last of all, I appreciate your point about integrity. A lot of evangelicals and Catholics definitely need to be challenged on that score vis-a-vis their political entanglements, but I’m not really worried that I’m one of them.

I didn’t mean to sound sarcastic in the above paragraph regarding integrity. I believe that Kevin’s point about “personal integrity” is well taken. It should be used as a criticism of a lot of conservative Christians.  Nor am I sanguine about the possible dangers of a Giuliani presidency. Rather, I just happen to think everything depends (I wish it didn’t) on who is appointed to the Supreme Court. In that narrow sense, I continue to be an unrepentant advocate of voting for any of the viable Republicans over any of the viable Democrats in ‘08. All of the Democratic candidates are fierce defenders of Roe v. Wade. None of the Republican candidates are.

Last of all, I agree with the point of Scott’s original post, which was that Giuliani should be denied communion as long as he supports abortion rights, and that Catholics are copping out on the whole issue.

Ken,
“Rather, I just happen to think everything depends (I wish it didn’t) on who is appointed to the Supreme Court.”

I think you are badly mistaken on thinking the Court holds such supremacy, but let’s say you are right; why should we trust Guiliani? To do so requires ignoring his entire public record on this issue. Voting on a “hope and a promise” -
("that’s good enough for me")will only feed the perception of pols that pro-lifers easy to manipulate and happy with mere lip-service. Even when it is administered by a man who has worn lip-stick!

Here is a sound assessment by John Zmirak;

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/arm_the_unborn/

“If a pro-abortion candidate wins the nomination—not to mention, God forbid, the White House—he will use the levers of party power to marginalize and quash social conservatives at every turn. And then we will have no political representation in America. We’ll be relegated to backing third-party candidates, or begging for pitiful crumbs like “parental notification” and a ban on partial birth abortion—rife with exceptions, of course, for things like a woman’s mental health.

We will be left in the wilderness, like supporters of Prohibition, black separatists, neo-Confederates, and those who still believe that Dwight Eisenhower was part of the Worldwide Communist Conspiracy. That is where the socially liberal Republican elites think we belong.

Such an outcome is far more dangerous to the prolife and the conservative cause than the election of Barak Obama or Hilary Clinton. Those Democrats just want to beat us in an election. Men like Rudolph Giuliani want to destroy us. The Democrats of this world are merely our opponents. The Giulianis are our enemies.”

@Kevin,

I hadn’t seen the article by John Zmirak. It resonates emotionally with me, but there are counterarguments. For example, pro-lifers could very well deny Giuliani reelection in 2012 by rising up against him en masse. Very, very easily. So how stupid is he going to be? Will he really try to stick it in pro-lifers’ faces, even if he is inclined to? I have serious doubts.

As for the Supreme Court, I blanch at the notion of President Hillary Rodham Clinton appointing more justices in the mode of Ruth Bader Ginsburg--a justice who believes the Hyde Amendment is unconstitutional. How great would it be if Maher v. Roe, which upheld the statutory ban on federally-funded abortion (that’s the Hyde Amendment) were overruled? As for Giuliani’s appointments to the court, you wonder whether he can be trusted to appoint practitioners of judicial restraint who will defer to the legislature on matters where citizens reasonably disagree. I think this goes, once again, to Giuliani’s commonsense--does he want to lose any chance of being reelected, or does he want to risk shrinking his party in Congress in the midterm election of 2010 by alienating pro-lifers? It’s encouraging to me, also, that Steve Calabresi, who is a reliable advocate of judicial restraint, is a advising Giuliani on judicial matters.

My defense of Giuliani is an “all things equal” sort. I would not vote for him in the general election if there are too many negatives overall. (He is my least favorite among the five major candidates---Huckabee is my favorite.) But to me, the president’s ability to appoint the members of the federal judiciary counts especially heavily in my voting calculus.

Ken,
“pro-lifers could very well deny Giuliani reelection in 2012 by rising up against him en masse.”

Why? The same lesser of 2 evils argument will easily prevail, especially when the pro-life power within the party is greatly weakened.

“judicial restraint”
You are aware the term can be used to lock-in bad law due to “precedent”. Giuliani can easily have it both ways; “I appointed non-activist judges, so don’t blame me for their upholding the abortion regime” and still count on donations from his wealthy pro-abortion supporters and the votes of bamboozled pro-lifers.

Ironically, it is precisely where he has the most flexibility for subterfuge - the Courts - that you deem as the most important reason for voting for him.

Do you think he and the professional cynics around him have figured that out?

Kevin,

Giuliani wouldn’t any longer be the lesser of two evils if he apppoints judges like Kennedy or O’Connor to the Supreme Court. In fact, I generally prefer the economic policies of populists/progressives to the utopian capitalism of today’s mainstream conservatives (I voted for Perot in ‘92). That edges me towards the Democrats on economic issues. My lesser-of-evils strategy keeps in mind other issues besides judicial nominations.

I disagree with the conventional wisdom about judicial restraint--I don’t think it always justifies recourse to precedent. Whether it does or not depends on considerations independent of the doctrine of precedent. I make that point at the end of an article I just sent to Scott Richert at Chronicles magazine. And to top things off (and defend myself from charges of pro-Giulianism) I’ve written an “Open Letter” to Giuliani that I’m sending around. Let me know if you’d like to see it.

Ken,
“Giuliani wouldn’t any longer be the lesser of two
evils if he apppoints judges like Kennedy or O’Connor
to the Supreme Court.”

Are you willing to give him that chance? If so, why?
I would love to see the open letter...why not
publish it here?

Ken, I echo Kevin.  If you’ll send me the text, I’ll post it in a blog post.

Kevin,

It’s not so much that I want to give him the chance, as that I don’t want to give Hillary the chance.

Here’s some excerpts from my Open Letter to Rudy Giuliani:

“There is a neglected aspect of the abortion question that you may not have seriously considered--or have not considered at all. Perhaps reflection on it will lead you to moderate or revise your pro-choice position. This too-often neglected consideration concerns infanticide. You see, it is irrefutable that there is a logical connection between infanticide and abortion. . . . Most pro-choicers think it is wrong to kill infants. But they have no objective basis for thinking so. The arguments in favor of abortion are unable to stave off the conclusion that infanticide, too, is morally permissible. This is not to say that most pro-choicers favor infanticide; the Judeo-Christian shadow which still hangs over our culture leads them to regard infanticide with revulsion. But it is almost comical to see how pro-choice philosophers try to avoid biting the bullet. Their arguments against infanticide are weak and unconvincing, given their pro-abortion premises. . . . If your Catholic faith means anything to you, and if you value truth, intellectual rigor, and moral consistency, you will make your peace with pro-lifers.”

Ken,
“It’s not so much that I want to give him the chance, as that I don’t want to give Hillary the chance.”

You’re in for some sleepless nights trying to parse
the differences between the 2 of them.

“If your Catholic faith means anything to you, and
if you value truth, intellectual rigor, and moral
consistency, you will make your peace with pro-lifers.”

Hasn’t his private and public behavior answered this
question?

The terms for “peace” seem one-sided; some
platitudes about Judges and he captures unearned
votes. He’ll take that deal. We won’t.

I hope Ron Paul is allowed in the Debates. He’ll
clobber both of them, but for Rudy it will be a
fatal beating.

Thanks for sharing your letter and good intentions.

Kevin,

Thanks for your feedback. We have different strategies, but we want to reach the same goal. Don’t forget that “the perfect is the enemy of the good.”

@Ken:

“Don’t forget that ‘the perfect is the enemy of the good.’”

Absolutely.  But in this case, that assumes that Rudy is good.  And you haven’t made that case yet.

I had the misfortune of hearing Sean Hannity just long enough, to hear him say; “Paris is well worth a Mass”

Actually he He stated the case for Giuliani this way:
“Being safe from terror is a family value. Being able to debate issues like abortion means being able to live free and safe from the terrorists.”

That’s the new mantra, for whatever it is worth.

Kevin: Hannity said that?
Either he had a brain transplant that went bad bad or he is scared to death about offending his neocon masters and losing his paycheck. Maybe both.

Scott: Haven’t I shown that Giuliani is less bad than Hillary Clinton? The dictum says that it’s more important to minimize evil than to seek some perfect and perhaps remote ideal. As far as domestic politics is concerned, I think this means minimizing the influence of secularist liberalism. Does anyone seriously doubt that the Robed Masters appointed by Hillary will be a lot worse that the ones appointed by Rudy? Imagine the Supreme Court circa 2010, filled with fops singing the praises of secularist liberalism.

On the other hand, I have no compelling response to someone who says that while that’s true enough, it’s outweighed by Giulian’s budding neocon foreign policy, except that I think cultural issues carry ultimately more weight than foreign policy issues.

Ken,
“Imagine the Supreme Court circa 2010, filled with fops singing the praises of secularist liberalism.”

We have that now. Yes, there is some sporadic dissent, but the Court operates within the confines of late Liberalism. It will continue to invent new rights for the autonomous and isolated individual, while simultaneously expanding the power of the State to promulgate and enforce those rights.

I guess I don’t see much difference between the 2 candidates. Giuliani’s record as a federal prosecutor should give you pause before accepting his approach to the judiciary so happily.

@Ken:

“Scott: Haven’t I shown that Giuliani is less bad than Hillary Clinton?”

Actually, I don’t think you have, but let’s assume for the moment that you did.  You still haven’t begun to show that he’s good.  And that’s what the maxim says: “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

Oops. I meant “bad,” not “bad bad.”

Kevin: Right now, by my reckoning, there are four Kantian liberals on the Court, and one erstwhile Millian liberal (Kennedy). The liberals have a slender and uneasy majority on cultural issues. What will happen if their majority becomes clear and dominant? As for Giuliani’s record as a federal prosecutor, I always thought it was generally exemplary, although a little ruthless. What don’t you like about that aspect of his career?

Scott: I strongly believe that, in politics, the less bad is tantamount to the good. I know it’s not the good as such, but it’s a political good all the same. Early 20th century Russia offers a nice analogy: The Tsar was not good, but the Bolsheviks were a lot worse.

As you will suspect, I think of Rudy as the Tsar, and Hillary as the leader of the Bolsheviks. (On the particular badness of Hillary, I recommend the indispensable book “American Evita.") I hasten to add that Rudy is NOT my favorite choice for the nomination--far from it.

Ken,
“What will happen if their majority becomes clear and dominant?” A better question is; what makes you think that such an outcome won’t occur under Giuliani? What in his background do you find so attractive? Anything?

“What don’t you like about that aspect of his career?”
Ken as you aptly put it; he was “ruthless”. In going after the Ivan Boeskys on Wall Street, he made it a habit of destroying and humiliating administrative assistants and junior traders by arresting and hand-cuffing them in full view of their colleagues. All in the hope of getting them to turn state witness on matters often outside their expertise.

Back then the Wall Street Journal use to lecture him on his disregard for due process and fair play. Now they can’t wait for him to assume the role of Jack Bauer, the tough protector of America.

His imperial executive style, indifference to intellectual nuance, philosophical principles or sense of proportion could work, at least for a time as Mayor in New York’s Byzantine political culture, but as President he would be a disaster.

He is the ultimate utilitarian and his personal and professional connections will only serve to both embarrass and discredit all those who justified their support for him out fear of Hillary.

You have not made the case for pro-lifers to accept such a man (and abandon their principles in the process) on the basis of the almost nihilistic trope that “the less bad is tantamount to the good.”

I’ve enjoyed the discussion, but unless yo unearth something compelling, I must sign-off, hopeful that in time you will see the folly of your position.

Ken,
Here is compelling evidence that Giuliani
would be a disaster for all that you hold dear;

“Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani hired a Catholic priest to work in his consulting firm months after the priest was accused of sexually molesting two former students and an altar boy and told by the church to stop performing his priestly duties.”
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3753385&page=1

Evaluate xenadrine review images xenadrine review images

Kevin,

I’m ready to sign off, too. We’re not making any progress. Just a couple of last points, if I may. First, I agree with you that Giuliani has a seriously flawed character, both as to his private life (e.g., his petition for the annulment of his first marriage--granted, of course, by the annulment-friendly American Catholic Bishops--on the dubious grounds that he didn’t know his first wife was his second cousin) and the public things you mention. But you are too easy on Hillary. She is sickeningly Machiavellian. I’ve read six or so biographies of her, and they appalled me.

For what it’s worth, here’s my argument in a nutshell:
An important aspect of the good is minimizing evil.
Secularist liberalism, while not “evil” strictly speaking, is morally undesirable and socially destructive. Weakening it’s influence is an unqualified good.
What must be avoided above all is CONSTITUTIONALIZING secularist liberalism.
Giuliani is much more likely than Hillary Clinton to appoint judges who will not constitutionalize secularist liberalism--judges who share Justice Scalia’s philosophy, which is that the Court should not decide the abortion issue one way or the other--neither striking down legislation that prohibits abortion nor striking down legislation that permits abortion.
Ergo, Giuliani is the lesser of evils.

Viewing matters this way is principled pragmatism, not nihilism.