Giuliani and Federalism…
25 July 2007 at 10:13 am | In Abortion, Constitution, Federalsim, Politics, Rudy Giuliani, pro-choice republican | Leave a CommentIt sounds like Giuliani might be the only viable candidate who has as streak of federalism running through his body.
Giuliani argues that the best way to reduce tension about social issues is to allow states, rather than the federal government, to take the lead in responding to them. That would allow socially conservative and liberal states to each set rules that reflect the prevailing values inside their borders. Rather than perpetual combat in Washington, he insists, the nation could reach a new equilibrium as different states gravitated to different solutions.
In an interview last week, Giuliani said the key to resolving cultural arguments “where our society on a national level ends up being very divided” is to apply the “principle of federalism.” Questions on topics such as gun control, gay rights or aspects of abortion, he continued, “are issues that I think the founding fathers would say should be consigned to state and local governments, experimenting, deciding, having different views, and the federal government having a more limited role.”
Maybe Giuliani might be end this “culture war” nonsense that has paralyzed our politics for four decades?
Federalism serves Giuliani’s political interests because it allows him to reconcile his generally moderate social views with his socially conservative party. But he’s also right that federalism can serve society’s interests by allowing “a lot of room for difference” in a diverse country.
Federalism isn’t a panacea. On regulatory issues such as global warming, both environmentalists (who want concerted national action) and business (which prefers consistent rules) often find it unsatisfactory. Nor is either side in the culture war likely to abandon its effort to impose its vision on the entire society.
But over time, federalism might drain some of the fervor from that fight by allowing both cultural conservatives and cosmopolitans to control the rules in their communities on these difficult issues — at the price of allowing the other side to do the same.
Personally I think federalism is the only way to end the culture war on the federal and state levels. If New York wants gun control and gay marriage, let them. If South Dakota wants restrictions on abortion and no gay marriage, let them.
Will a Giuliani nomination and victory bring the pro-choice Republicans out of the closet?
22 July 2007 at 11:23 am | In Abortion, College Republicans, Philosophy, Politics, Rudy Giuliani, pro-choice republican | Leave a CommentThis is a question I have been asking myself recently. From my perspective, I have always found a good number of Republicans who are probably pro-choice, but just pander to the pro-life crowd for political reasons. I am not much of a panderer usually, but I used to play nice to the pro-life cause even though my position on the issue is complex to say the least. Once I freed myself of my College Republicans obligations, I more or less thought out my views on the subject and realized I am more or less pro-choice even though I think the practice is a sign of lacking responsibility for ones actions.
Will a Giuliani nomination and victory lead to more pro-choice Republicans appearing all of a sudden? Probably for two reasons: First, those who have pandered to the pro-life cause because the belief its essential to victory will be liberated from that mentality. Instead they will be honest about their beliefs and advocate the position they support.
Second, more people who are more or less in favor of the Republican economic agenda, but against the social agenda, will start supporting Republicans more vocally. I know a lot of younger people fall into this category. We might be socially moderate (my case) or socially liberal (one of my closest friend’s case), but we agree with the Republican economic agenda because it appeals to our upper income or future upper income lifestyle more than the Democratic nanny state model.
A Giuliani victory would reconfigure the political balance in this nation from a cultural divide to a more economic divide as his staunch free market policies will appeal to the upper and middle classes.
Partial birth abortion ban upheld
18 April 2007 at 10:08 am | In Abortion, Politics | Leave a CommentThe Federal ban on partial birth abortions was upheld by a 5-4 margin on the Supreme Court.
Good ruling in my book. Partial birth is a horrific practice in most books and limiting this practice does not limit the choice of anyone seeing its still possible to get an abortion in the first and second trimesters.
If you are not intelligent enough to figure out you are pregnant in that time frame, I do not fill sorry for you.
The law allows for medical exceptions, which is a necessity in my book.
People need to quit being afraid to be pro-choice…
11 April 2007 at 10:50 am | In Abortion, Compassionate Conservatism, Mitt Romney, Politics, Rudy Giuliani, pro-choice republican | Leave a CommentFormerly pro-choice Republican Fred Thompson used to be right on the abortion issue:
“Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.”
What a shocking concept: The “government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own!”
Too many on both sides of the political spectrum have fallen into this game of supporting big government when it supports their ends.
Maybe we should all take Thompson’s former view to heart and return to the Goldwater Republican vision instead of this big government nanny state compassion crap we got now under President George “Without Competence” Bush.
This philosophical condundrum has pushed me to reconsider my primary vote. As much as I like Mitt Romney, he has bought too much into this religious right crap and is catering too much to them.
While I dislike the Giuliani gun stance, he is probably the most for limited government of any major candidate. Furthermore, he is not pandering to the religious right one bit. Instead, he is focusing on the issues that matter to him and keeping his convictions. I admire this a lot.
Why Ryan hates emotionally driven issues part II, abortion again…
3 March 2007 at 8:22 pm | In Abortion, Philosophy, Politics | 1 CommentLast time I posted on how mainly the right uses emotions too much in the abortion debate, now its time to hammer the left.
First, the legal precedent that establishes on demand abortion, Roe v. Wade, is not the firmest decision in the world constitutionally speaking. In fact, I would argue the basis for Roe v. Wade is not constitutionally solid and probably will be struck down some day. The pro-choice side needs to be prepared for that day.
Second, the pro-choice side is too dependent on Roe v. Wadewhen they should not be. If Roe was struck down tomorrow, the vast majority of states would not criminalize abortion. The ballot initiative in South Dakota in November showed that even very conservative states are not ready to challenge the status quo and outlaw abortions in cases except life of the mother. Abortions are safe in most states even if Roe falls.
Third, maybe this is because I am a snob, but having bull dyke feminists who look like male construction workers are not the best type of people you want around if you want broad based appeal. If you want broad based appeal, stick cute women who look like the girl next door in front of your protests. Americans will be like “aww, those cute women want their rights protected.” Many men specifically will be enthralled by the cute women and will do whatever they say.
Fourth, someone needs to do a study on how many illegal abortions occurred before Roe. I know you will not get a specific number, but a ball park figure would be interesting to see.
Fifth, the pro-choice advocates need to back off the partial birth abortion support. A good portion of the population finds this practice sickening including myself and it only hurts the cause to continue advocating it. If a woman wants to get an abortion and does not realize she wants one until the sixth month, its her own fault she is an idiot. Now expections for the health of the mother must be made.
Why Ryan hates emotion driven issues part I, abortion.
1 March 2007 at 10:50 am | In Abortion, Politics | Leave a CommentOver the last week, I have been attacked and applauded for the wrong reasons when it comes some of my stances on political issues.
Fundamentally, I am not an emotional person per se in things beyond the personal level. Highly emotional causes automatically turn me off. This is why I have little interest in the abortion debate. There is very little reason involved in the arguments of either side. Both sides are engaged in an emotionally driven campaign with very little data to back up their cause other than some random statistics pulled out of the air. I dislike nothing more in politics or any other soceitial adventure than hysterical arguments lacking logic or reason.
Specifically on the abortion debate, I have found some sembalance of reason in the arguments found in the book, Freakanomics. I have not read the entire piece of the book dealing with the abortion debate, but it gives a pretty good argument why abortion is not destructive to society based on economics. Blogging specifically about the argument would not give it the justice is due so I recommend people to go to the nearest library or bookstore and get a copy of it.
Beyond Freakanomics, I have shaped my opinion on the following conclusions:
First, the Bible does not outlaw the practice of abortion per se. Many denominations question when the spiritual concept of life begins and what the Bible specifically says about the practice.
Second, the legal tradition of the Western world has traditionally prohibited the practice at the point of “Quickening,” which is when the movements of the fetus can be felt. Before “Quickening,” there appears to be no historical prohibition per se.
Third, the question of viablity beyond the womb should be taken more seriously. Some on the pro-choice side scream about the “it is my body” argument. While I do not like the emotional nature of their appeals, there is some truth to their arguments because there is a point where the fetus is clearly part of their body for its existence. Once it becomes capable of living outside of the womb, it logically follows that it is a separate entity. Before that moment, it cannot be considered a separate entity.
More to come on the subject…
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
