The Significance of Rudy Giuliani

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

Some months
ago, I wrote an article for LRC where I discussed a new and uniquely
subtle form of totalitarianism that has begun to develop in the
Western world in recent decades and has found its way into the highest
echelons of the modern democracies. For the sake of brevity, I will
simply provide this
link
to my previous article rather than attempt to provide a
comprehensive discussion of this alarming development once again.
Suffice to say, the new totalitarianism that is alternately called
by the names of "political correctness," "cultural
Marxism," "multiculturalism," "totalitarian
humanism" or (my preference) "liberal-nazism," continues
to make inroads into Western, perhaps especially American, political
and intellectual life. Exhibit A for my case might be the prominence
of Rudolph Giuliani in the current presidential campaign. For there
is no other national politician who is more thoroughly representative
of this menace than Mr. Giuliani.

Mr. Giuliani’s
character (or lack thereof) has been well documented by other writers.
The always perceptive Paul Craig Roberts has provided a concise
but penetrating summary of what he aptly describes as Giuliani’s
"criminal career," particularly his efforts to advance
his position as a federal prosecutor during the 1980s by conducting
deliberate frame-up operations against entirely innocent persons.
Slate’s Cintra Wilson has described the police state environment
Giuliani attempted to create during his time as New York City’s
Mayor:

"Giuliani,
having destroyed what might have been the best management team in
NYPD history, had to start from scratch. (Former Police Chief William)
Bratton’s successors continued using the tactics of the men Rudy
had canned, but twisted and distorted them. Giuliani…, in trying
to one-up the strategic balance of the Bratton team’s approach to
law enforcement, opted to jack up the ‘enforcement’ and not pay
so much attention to the ‘law’.

…(A) corps
of hyper-macho officers once described by the Village Voice’s
Nat Hentoff as ‘a rogue police operation whose members make Clint
Eastwood’s Dirty Harry look like Mahatma Gandhi.’ They were given
leeway to enact ‘stop-and-frisks’ of ordinary citizens – supposedly
to discourage them from carrying guns…Go figure: members of the
Street Crime Unit, Hentoff reported, delighted in wearing T-shirts
emblazoned with such intimidating slogans as ‘We Own the Night!’
and the Hemingway quote, ‘There is no hunting like the hunting of
man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and like it
never care for anything else.’

…Giuliani
officially adopted a zero-tolerance policy toward any and all criticism
and satire aimed at himself. He had the New York Metropolitan Transportation
Authority remove an ad for New York magazine from city buses
that joked that the magazine was ‘Possibly the only good thing in
New York Rudy hasn’t taken credit for.’ A U.S. District Court judge
slapped Rudy down for his inability to take a joke or tolerate the
First Amendment; the ban was lifted.

…Cops under
Giuliani and Safir enforced, with excessive gusto, a heavy-handed
crackdown on graffiti, subway turnstile jumping, street artists,
jaywalking, public drinking, public urination, peaceful protest
demonstrations and the squeegee men who washed windshields at stop
lights…(E)veryone I knew at one point had either a first- or secondhand
tale of police behaving in a Kafkaesque fashion, under the mayor
many had nicknamed Il Duce – or ‘a small man in search of a
balcony,’ as newspaper columnist Jimmy Breslin memorably called
him…

…Giuliani’s
strangest bedfellow was surely Bernard Kerik, the even less qualified
successor to Howard Safir. Kerik, who during his undercover days
dressed like Lorenzo Lamas and compared himself to Serpico, enjoyed
a tendency to play fast and loose with law enforcement, using his
detectives as virtual Praetorian Guard for resolving personal matters.
Kerik’s autobiography was published by his own extramarital bedfellow,
shameless publishing gorgon Judith Regan (who published Kerik’s
book long before failing to publish O.J. Simpson’s ‘If I Did It’).
Kerik allegedly sent detectives to search, SWAT-style, the homes
of Fox TV employees after Regan claimed they had stolen her cell
phone … he was also reprimanded for sending detectives, on the
city’s dime, to do research for his book. But he had once been Giuliani’s
personal bodyguard and thus was qualified to become New York’s police
commissioner. When Giuliani recommended that Bush nominate Kerik
(then his business partner) to head the Department of Homeland Security
in 2004, Kerik’s life unraveled miserably under the scrutiny of
the vetting process. He withdrew his name and eventually pleaded
guilty to accepting such perks as apartment renovations and personal
loans, while a public official, from businesses with alleged mob
ties."

Whether attempting
to legally silence his critics, framing innocent people, trampling
private property rights, treating citizens as penitentiary inmates,
hiring thugs as policemen or appointing criminals to head up law
enforcement, Giuliani has exhibited a propensity for political authoritarianism
and personal unscrupulousness far beyond even the disgraceful norm
in modern American government. Mr. Giuliani himself made his philosophy
of government very clear in a 1994 speech on the subject of crime
and law enforcement:

"We see
only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our
history and our background. What we don’t see is that freedom is
not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything
they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness
of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great
deal of discretion about what you do…At the core the struggle
is philosophical. There are many, many things that can be done in
law enforcement to protect us better. There are many things that
can done to create a government that is more responsive and more
helpful."

If this statement
concerning the synonymous nature of freedom and authority appears
overly vague, Mr. Giuliani has graciously expounded on his "philosophical"
approach in more recent times. As Glenn Greenwald explains:

"Over
the weekend, it was revealed by National Review’s Ramesh
Ponnuru that Rudy Giuliani believes that, as President, he would
have the power to imprison American citizens without any sort of
review of any kind, and Giuliani stated he hoped to exercise that
power only ‘infrequently’… Giuliani expressly believes that, as
President, he can exercise (and apparently intends to exercise,
though just ‘infrequently’) one of the most tyrannical and un-American
powers there is…"

…Despite
the minimal caveats, Giuliani made the claim three times in the
same night – first at the event itself, then in an interview
with a local reporter afterwards, then with (National Review’s
Rich) Lowry. Each time, he proclaimed that the President has the
power to fund the war on his own even once Congress exercises its
Constitutional power – a power which, up until now, I have
never heard anyone question – to cut off funding for the war."

In other words,
Giuliani believes that, if he is elected President of the United
States, he will have the power to imprison anyone he wishes for
any length of time he wishes without such burdens as due process
and fair trials, appropriate public funds for whatever purpose he
wishes without congressional oversight, and wage war on foreign
nations whenever he wants and for whatever duration he wants, the
"will of the people" who elected him and the directions
of their elected representatives not withstanding. Mr. Giuliani
is indeed correct when he says "at the core the struggle is
philosophical." The "philosophical struggle" in question
is the conflict between the principles of liberty and civilization
accumulated over the centuries and enshrined in such institutions
as the Magna Carta, English Common Law and the American Constitution,
and the forces of tyranny and barbarism that have plagued other
nations over the past century.

Giuliani
and Cultural Marxism

One of the
great ironies of our time is that most Americans have no awareness
that the two primary intellectual factions of the present-day American
elites are both derivatives of 1960s-era Marxist radicalism. The
intellectual leadership of the right-wing of the establishment is,
of course, provided by the increasingly notorious neoconservatives.
Lesser known is that the neocons were, in the 1960s, the same people
who were then called the "state department socialists,"
that is, Marxist radicals, mostly followers of the maverick Trotskyite
Max Schactman, who positioned themselves on the far left end of
the Johnson-era Democratic Party. This was a branch of Marxism that
supported the Cold War and even the war in Vietnam (largely on typical
Trotskyite anti-Stalinist grounds) and, perhaps more significantly,
moved sharply rightward following the takeover of the Democratic
Party by New Left radicals during the McGovern period. That the
Schactmanites began calling themselves "conservative"
and working their way into the upper strata of the Republican Party
and the broader array of institutions of the Right does not mean
that they changed their ideas, but only their terminology and their
tactics. As the career Schactmanite and founding father of neoconservatism
Irving Kristol remarks:

"Viewed
in this way, one can say that the historical task and political
purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the
Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against
their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics
suitable to governing a modern democracy…

…One of these
policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in
order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented
by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that
interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth.
Neocons are familiar with intellectual history and aware that it
is only in the last two centuries that democracy has become a respectable
option among political thinkers. In earlier times, democracy meant
an inherently turbulent political regime, with the "have-nots"
and the "haves" engaged in a perpetual and utterly destructive
class struggle. It was only the prospect of economic growth in which
everyone prospered, if not equally or simultaneously, that gave
modern democracies their legitimacy and durability…

…The cost
of this emphasis on economic growth has been an attitude toward
public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among
more traditional conservatives. Neocons would prefer not to have
large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy –
because it seems to be in the nature of human nature – that
political demagogy will frequently result in economic recklessness,
so that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost
(temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth…

…This leads
to the issue of the role of the state. Neocons do not like the concentration
of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative
ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the
Hayekian notion that we are on "the road to serfdom."
Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth
of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable…

…The upshot
is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair
proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists.
They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the
relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and
the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the
government’s attention. And since the Republican party now has a
substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain
influence and even power…

…AND THEN,
of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics
where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention.
This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs
concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from
historical experience. (The favorite neoconservative text on foreign
affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald
Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.) These attitudes
can be summarized in the following ‘theses’ (as a Marxist would
say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should
be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely
because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American
sentiment.

…Finally,
for a great power, the ‘national interest’ is not a geographical
term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental
regulation. A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national
interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy
is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive
interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like
the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably
have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns…"

To summarize
Mr. Kristol’s verbiage a bit, what he is really saying is that it
has been the mission of neoconservatism to seize control of the
Republican Party and the conservative movement, to use shallow jingoism
and crass exploitation of traditional religious sentiments and an
illusion of prosperity fueled by fiscal recklessness to marshal
support for the true aim of the neocons, world domination in the
name of a universalist ideology, i.e., the same essential foreign
policy position of the former Soviet Union.

The principal
rivals to the neoconservatives who now dominate the Republican Party
are their long-time enemies, the New Left radicals who have dominated
the Democratic Party since 1972. That these two variations of Marxist
extremism from the far left end of American politics during the
1960s are now the two dominant political factions of the American
ruling class graphically illustrates how far leftward the country
has drifted over the past forty years, the persistent cries of some
alleged "conservative backlash" by conventional left-liberals
notwithstanding. George W. Bush, though himself a traditional Rockefeller
Republican, has governed well to the left of the Johnson administration
with his efforts to expand the welfare state, record budget deficits,
sharp increases in foreign aid, amnesty for illegal aliens, increased
federal control over public education and, above all, the doctrine
of preventive war, a concept Otto von Bismarck described as akin
to committing suicide to overcome one’s fear of death and which
surpasses even the "domino theory"-inspired lunacy of
LBJ and his cronies.

It is, of
course, the variation of New Left radicalism that has emerged triumphant
in the worlds of academia and media in recent decades that has also
created the foundation of "political correctness." "Multiculturalism,"
as political correctness is formally called, is merely the application
of Marxist theory, with its dualistic and conspiratorial view of
history and social conflict, to the cultural realm. The holy war
is not between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but between
Western civilization with its evil hegemony of "straight white
Christian males" and the by-definition virtuous groupings comprising
the pantheon of the oppressed, usually racial minorities, feminists,
homosexuals, transsexuals, environmentalists, Third World immigrants,
endangered species, public school teachers, social service bureaucrats,
leftwing professors, liberal clergy, "civil rights" race
hustlers, and occasionally and perhaps as a token tribute to the
Old Left, union bosses. The ultimate aim of multiculturalism is
the creation of a totalitarian state ordered as a type of caste
system where individual privilege is assigned on the basis of group
identity and group privilege is assigned on the basis of the position
of the group in the pantheon of the oppressed.

So what does
this have to do with the presidential candidacy of Rudolph Giuliani?
Simply put, more than any other contemporary national-level American
politician, Giuliani represents a type of convergence, a bridge
between these two dominate factions of now-in-power neo-Marxism.
Furthermore, Mr. Giuliani epitomizes the emerging ideological paradigm
of the intellectual, cultural and political elite. The essential
elements of this paradigm include:

  1. Militarism,
    Imperialism and Empire in the guise of "human rights,"
    "democracy," modernity, universalism, feminism and
    other leftist shibboleths.

  2. Corporate
    Mercantilism (or "state-capitalism") under the guise
    of "free trade."

  3. In domestic
    policy, an all-encompassing and unaccountable bureaucracy that
    peers into every corner of society to make sure no one anywhere,
    anyplace, anytime ever practices ‘"racism, sexism, and
    homophobia," smoking, "sex abuse" or other such
    leftist sins.

  4. In the
    realm of law, a police state ostensibly designed to protect
    everyone from terrorism, crime, drugs, guns, gangs or some other
    bogeyman of the month.

Given the
abject failure of the neocons’ foreign policy endeavors, and the
relatively small size of their movement, it is unlikely they will
be able to maintain power for a substantial amount of time. Already,
they are beginning to pass from the scene, as the criminal conviction
of Lewis "Scooter" Libby and the recent career downturn
of Paul Wolfowitz indicate. The demise of the neocons, however,
does not mean a return to traditional conservatism or even old-guard
corporate liberalism of the "vital center" species. Instead,
the decline of the neocons essentially means the triumph of the
overt cultural Marxism of the ossified New Left. Jack Ross has assessed
the situation as follows:

""The
meaning of this should be made absolutely clear-the new left is,
therefore, but a variance, most accurately put a mere ‘left-deviationist’
tendency as the Marxists would call it, of neo-conservatism…it
is not only an enabler of neoconservatism but seeks to impose a
more radical form thereof. Thus it is also clear that the two major
parties in America today are but the right and left wings of the
sect of Max Shachtman, with the Republicans representing the neoconservative
right and the Democrats representing new left liberalism."

More than
any other prominent American politician, Mr. Giuliani represents
a transitional phase between neoconservatism and the New Left. As
Cintra Wilson observes:

"He also
cashes big checks for speaking to adoring crowds of heartland voters
whose names do not end in vowels. "America’s Mayor" seems
to be convincing those crowds that he is one of them. Pundits have
been speculating that Giuliani is too liberal and otherwise sullied
to win the Republican presidential candidacy – he may be anti-peep
show, anti-blasphemy, and anti-ferret, but he is pro-gun control,
pro-choice and pro-gay rights. But Giuliani appears to have been
in a long, quiet process of sliding ever rightward. Among those
now raising money for Giuliani’s presidential bid are Christopher
Henick, former deputy assistant to Karl Rove, Bush fundraiser Anne
Dickerson, and legendary Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens.
America’s Mayor may be America’s next president, and America’s next
Angry Daddy. There is no consolation in knowing ahead of time how
wrong that could go."

Giuliani
and the Religious Right

Giuliani’s
image as a simultaneous crusader against crime, pornography, and
sacrilegious "art" but staunch supporter of abortion,
gay marriage, gun control and open borders is a curious one, but
one that makes perfect sense once his role in American political
life becomes more clearly understood. On one end, Giuliani is a
continuation of the program of neoconservatism: the use of religion,
nationalism, jingoism and a veneer of social or moral conservatism
as a means of rallying support for a militarist foreign policy and
an ever more obtrusive state domestically among heartland Republican
voters, while clandestinely furthering the agenda of social leftism.
On the other end, Giuliani symbolizes the continued drift of the
Republican Party towards the cultural Marxism displayed in an even
more uninhibited manner by the Democrats. As the paleoconservatives
never tire of pointing out, the function of mainstream American
conservatism is to legitimize, institutionalize and "conserve"
the achievements of the previous wave of leftism. His conservative
image and rhetoric notwithstanding, Ronald Reagan did not govern
any further to the Right than John F. Kennedy. The function of the
Nixon administration was to consolidate and expand the leaps in
welfare statism of the Johnson era. As I stated earlier, George
W. Bush governs to the left of LBJ. The day will come in America
when the overt cultural leftism of the present-day Democrats will
establish itself as the guiding ideology of the Republican Party
and will come to be thought of as representing "conservatism."
This will in turn open the door to even more extreme forms of cultural
Marxism of the kind that now dominate the humanities departments
in many American universities and further still as America continues
to head further down the "road to serfdom" (or "into
the twilight zone").

Some have
argued that Giuliani’s social liberalism makes it improbable that
he will acquire the nomination of the Republican Party. I suspect
this assumption is a bit nave. After all, the socially conservative
base of the Republicans has remained steadfastly loyal to President
Bush in spite of his frequently strident liberal policies. A recent
poll indicated that Giuliani is the favored candidate of conservative
gun owners in spite of his pro-gun control positions. While some
religious right leaders, such as Dr. James Dobson, have disavowed
Giuliani because of his pro-abortion views, it needs to be understood
that the religious right in particular and social conservatism in
general is about much more than clichd right-wing opinions on the
question of abortion and homosexuality. As America has continued
to move leftward culturally, so has its evangelical Christian subculture.
Stodgy figures like Dr. Dobson, the bizarre Rev. Pat Robertson or
the late Dr. Jerry Falwell represent the religious right’s old-guard
that is now in a state of decline. What will the new generation
of religious rightists look like? Some clues are available as indicated
by this report from MSNBC:

"Many
conservative Christians active in politics today believe that the
way Falwell confronted political foes made evangelicals seem hateful.
The younger leaders also have been pressing for a broader policy
agenda beyond abortion and traditional marriage by trying to include
AIDS care, environmental protection and education.

‘It’s a very
important debate about the future of the movement,’ said John Green,
senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. The
divisions have been most apparent over the environment. Focus on
the Family founder James Dobson and 24 other Christian leaders this
year tried to pressure the National Association of Evangelicals
to silence its Washington director, the Rev. Rich Cizik, because
Cizik is trying to convince evangelicals that global warming is
real."

And this:

"Polls
suggest that evangelicals under 30 are just as staunchly opposed
to abortion, and almost as concerned about ‘moral standards’ in
general, as their elders. But a February Pew survey found that younger
evangelicals are more likely than their parents to worry about environmental
issues; 59 percent of those under 30 said the United States was
‘losing ground’ on pollution, compared with 37 percent of those
over 30. Acceptance of homosexuality is also greater among young
evangelicals. One in three under 30 favors same-sex marriage, compared
with one in 10 of their elders.

Redeem the
Vote, a group formed in 2004 to register young evangelicals to vote,
is campaigning with black churches in Alabama for capping the interest
charges on short-term ‘payday’ loans, which can hit 400 percent
a year. The group’s founder, physician Randy Brinson, said he finds
that young evangelicals are intensely interested in practical ways
to help their communities and are little swayed by issues such as
same-sex marriage.

‘These kids
have gone to school with people who happen to be gay, and they don’t
see them as a direct threat. They may think that lifestyle is wrong,
but they don’t see it as something that really affects their daily
lives,’ Brinson said. ‘The groups that focus only on a narrow agenda,
especially gay marriage and abortion, are going to decline."

In other words,
even the religious right is becoming yet another branch of liberalism.
Much journalistic criticism of the religious right represents the
perspective of a doctrinaire secularism and cultural leftism that
focuses on the supposed menace represented by the opposition of
Christian fundamentalists to abortion, homosexuality, Darwinism
and Supreme Court rulings concerning the application of the non-establishment
clause of the First Amendment. Such criticism overlooks and fails
to grasp what is really interesting (and dangerous) about the religious
right. As Glenn Greenwald observes:

"There
is a widespread assumption that within the Republican ‘base’–
specifically among the party’s religious ‘conservatives’ –
there are two distinct categories of issues: (a) foreign policy
issues (relating to terrorism, Iraq, etc.) and (b) issues of religion
and morality (gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, etc.).
Conventional wisdom holds that Giuliani’s views on the former are
acceptable, even exciting, for the base, but his views on the latter
are anathema to them, even fatal to his chances for attracting their
support. But for the bulk of religious conservatives, foreign policy
issues are not distinct from religious and moral issues. Our Middle
East foreign policy is a critical, really the predominant, item
on their moral and religious agenda. Among the Christian right,
aggressive, war-seeking policies in the Middle East – specifically
against Muslim religiosity and Israel’s enemies – are embraced
on moral and theological grounds far more than on geopolitical grounds."

The religious
right has lost the so-called "culture wars." The project
of Rev. Falwell and his compatriots of turning back the clock to
American society as it was in the 1950s has failed. To sustain their
vitality, evangelical Christian political groupings will have to
orient themselves towards other issues that are more marketable.
Foreign policy and patriotism are foremost among these. Depicting
the present conflict between America and the Islamic world as holy
war between God’s American people and the heathen, infidel, misogynistic,
terroristic ragheads has a certain psychological appeal to partisans
of the religious right. This, I believe, explains better than anything
else the brownshirt psychology of many Bush loyalists. As Lew Rockwell
says:

"The reality
is that today there are ever fewer conservatives alive who believe
in true liberty as the old school believed in it. They have been
ideologically compromised beyond repair. They have been so seduced
by the Bush administration that they have become champions of an
egregious war, ghastly bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland
Security, and utterly unprincipled on the question of government
growth. Granted, the corruption of conservatism dates way back—to
the Reagan administration, to the Nixon administration, and even
to the advent of the Cold War, when conservatives signed on to become
cheerleaders of the national security state. But it’s never
been as bad as it is today. They sometimes invoke the names of genuinely
radical thinkers such as F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. But their
real heroes are talk-radio blabsters, television entertainers, and
sexpot pundit quipsters. They have little intellectual curiosity
at all. In many ways, today’s conservatives are party men and
women not unlike those we saw in totalitarian countries, people
who spout the line and slay the enemy without a thought as to the
principles involved. Yes, they hate the Left. But only because the
Left is the “other.”

Rudolph Giuliani
cleverly understands that the best way to appeal to the Republican
base is with militarism rather than morality. Says Glenn Greenwald:

"Giuliani’s
talent for expressing prosecutor-like righteous anger towards ‘bad
people’ – as well as his well-honed ability to communicate
base-pleasing rhetoric towards Islamic extremists – is underappreciated.
I don’t think any candidate will be able to compete with his ability
to convey a genuine hard-line against Middle Eastern Muslims and
that is the issue that – admittedly with some exceptions –
dominates the Christian conservative agenda more than gay marriage
and abortion (concerns which he can and will minimize by promising
to appoint more Antonin Scalias and Sam Alitos to the Supreme Court,
something he emphasized… in a highly amicable interview with Sean
Hannity).

The second
issue typically used to argue that Giuliani cannot attract the necessary
support from the party’s Christian conservative faction is the wreck
of a personal life he has suffered – the two broken marriages,
the publicly documented adultery, his cohabitation with a gay couple,
etc. But there are few things that are clearer than the fact that
Christian conservatives care far less about a person’s actual conduct
and behavior (and specifically whether it comports to claimed Christian
morality standards) than they do about the person’s moral and political
rhetoric, and even more so, a person’s ability to secure political
power. Two of the most admired political figures among Christian
conservatives – Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich – have
the most shameful, tawdry, and degenerate personal lives (using
the claimed standards of that political faction). Yet the gross
disparity between their personal conduct and the religious and moral
values they espouse has not injured their standing in the slightest
among the ‘values voters."

Rudy Giuliani
is significant because, whether he is eventually elected to the
Presidency or not, he symbolizes the American state of the future,
a regime dominated by leftist ideologues with their roots in 1960s
era radicalism, but who have long since sold out to the plutocracy
and the military-industrial complex for the sake of advancing their
radical social agenda. The ascension of the neocons to power during
the Bush administration is only the first step. In the on-deck circle
are those with an even more extremist agenda and even more authoritarian
tendencies. A Giuliani administration would make the regimes of
Bill Clinton and George W. Bush look libertarian by comparison.
Nor would a regime headed by Mrs. Clinton offer any relief. The
domestic American police state has continued to expand under every
President since the era of Reagan’s "war on drugs." The
consistent pattern for decades has been that the Right continually
offers up more militarism and "law and order" fascism
which the Left then seizes and uses for the implementation of its
social agenda. It was the militarization of law enforcement resulting
from the Right’s drug war that led directly to the atrocities at
Waco and Ruby Ridge during the Clinton era. It was Clinton’s "anti-terrorism"
legislation that served as the prototype for the Bush administration’s
Patriot Act.

One can only
imagine what will happen when the legal innovations of the Bush
regime-suspension of habeas corpus, military commissions, detention
without trial, the complete gutting of the Fourth Amendment, the
legalization of torture, abrogation of the Geneva Convention, "signing
statements" and much else-are in the hands of radical Leftists
committed to the use of such weapons in the holy war against racism,
sexism, homophobia, "hate" criminals, gun owners, the
politically incorrect, the ecologically incorrect, smokers, homeschoolers,
"cults," allegedly backward and unscientific religious
superstitions, deadbeat dads, those who run afoul of so-called "child
protective services," drug abusers, sex abusers, animal abusers,
prostitutes, property owners and other left-wing demons. In some
European countries, political dissidents and those who utter politically
incorrect speech can be subject to fines and imprisonment. The actress
Bridgette Bardot was prosecuted in France for criticizing Islamic
animal husbandry practices. Christian clerics in the Scandinavian
countries who criticize homosexuality can be subject to "hate
speech" prosecutions. Great Britain’s Scotland Yard maintains
a "Diversity Directorate," the purpose of which is explained
by its name. Many with unfashionable or unpopular political views
or interpretations of history, some of them elderly persons in their
80s, languish in European prisons. This is in spite of the fact
that most of the European democracies are far less militaristic
and maintain far less expansive domestic police states than the
United States. One shudders to imagine a synthesis of European-style
leftism and American-style fascism, but that’s where we are headed.
And the viability of Mr. Giuliani’s presidential campaign is among
the most evident symptoms of this malady.

(Note: This
essay was completed before I had the chance to view Paul Gottfried’s
excellent article on the popularity of Giuliani among the Christian
Right in the June 4 issue of the American Conservative. I
generally agree with Gottfried’s discussion of the issue, but with
the exception that I think Gottfried underestimates the influence
of apocalyptic theology on the religious right. Keep in mind, for
example, the popularity of the Left Behind rapturist novels.

Gottfried also
points out the interesting fact that neoconservative godfather Irving
Kristol’s son William has called for a Rudy Giuliani-Joseph Lieberman
ticket in 2008. Lieberman is second only to Giuliani in his espousal
of the emerging synthesis of the militarist Right and cultural Marxist
Left. The Jacobin democratic-imperialist zeal of these two combined
with their incipient social leftism (not to mention their pro-Israel
fanaticism) make them obvious candidates for neocon favoritism).

May
29, 2007

Keith Preston
[send him mail] is a
long-time radical writer and activist from Richmond, Virginia. See
his website
.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare