Emery on Giuliani, Giuliani on diversity and terror

Noemie Emery’s article in The Weekly Standard, “Let’s Make a Deal: Social conservatives, Rudy Giuliani, and the end of the litmus test,” is not just another pro-Giuliani article. It is the Keynote Address of Pro-Giuliani Articles, it is the Juggernaut of Pro-Giuliani Articles. In Emery’s presentation, Rudy is a figure of such transcendent virtue and appeal—especially on the issue of the war on terror—that the entire social-conservative base is lining up to support him for president despite his social liberal views and his tainted personal history. The article constructs a sheer massification of argument that is intimidating, crushing all doubts, rolling over all opposition: Giuliani is the One, Everyone Knows It, and That’s It.

Emery’s belief that Giuliani is so great on the issue of the war, even tougher than Bush, seems to be based mainly on his record as mayor. He was tough on crime in New York, therefore he will be tough on Islamofascists in the Mideast. But do we have any idea what he would do on the war? His own website has nothing about his positions on the war, and whatever he has said about it in the past that I have seen has been superficial and conventional, a kind of “Bush Plus”: America is defined by nothing but diversity and freedom, and the terrorists are defined by nothing except their opposition to diversity and freedom, and we must crush the terrorists. Those were the Bush-like notes sounded by Giuliani in his speech to the UN General Assembly on October 1, 2001, which I will quote below.

The overwhelming confidence Emery shows in the Giuliani Inevitability reminds me of another neocon inevitability that was pushed with great confidence: the democratization of Iraq and of the whole Middle East. Think for example of the endless string of triumphalist Mark Steyn articles about Iraq in 2003 and 2004, in which he simply mocked the left for doubting that Bush’s transformation of Iraq would succeed. A fair question to ask is, after the disaster the neocons have put this country and Iraq through, why should their confident political judgments and predictions on any subject be given any credence at all?

The word “confidence” is the key. The neocons are not so much intellectuals as intellectual con men, neo-con artists.

Here now are excerpts from Giuliani’s 2001 speech to the UN:

The strength of America’s response, please understand, flows from the principles upon which we stand.

Americans are not a single ethnic group.

Americans are not of one race or one religion.

Americans emerge from all your nations.

We are defined as Americans by our beliefs—not by our ethnic origins, our race or our religion. Our beliefs in religious freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom—that’s what makes an American. Our belief in democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human life—that’s how you become an American. It is these very principles—and the opportunities these principles give to so many to create a better life for themselves and their families—that make America, and New York, a “shining city on a hill.”

There is no nation, and no City, in the history of the world that has seen more immigrants, in less time, than America. People continue to come here in large numbers to seek freedom, opportunity, decency, and civility.

Each of your nations—I am certain—has contributed citizens to the United States and to New York. I believe I can take every one of you someplace in New York City, where you can find someone from your country, someone from your village or town, that speaks your language and practices your religion. In each of your lands there are many who are Americans in spirit, by virtue of their commitment to our shared principles. [Italics added.] [See? America is not a country; America is the global community of all people who believe in freedom.]

It is tragic and perverse that it is because of these very principles—particularly our religious, political and economic freedoms—that we find ourselves under attack by terrorists.

Our freedom threatens them, because they know that if our ideas of freedom gain a foothold among their people it will destroy their power. So they strike out against us to keep those ideas from reaching their people.

The best long-term deterrent to terrorism—obviously—is the spread of our principles of freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human life. The more that spreads around the globe, the safer we will all be.
These are very powerful ideas and once they gain a foothold, they cannot be stopped.

In fact, the rise that we have seen in terrorism and terrorist groups, I believe, is in no small measure a response to the spread of these ideas of freedom and democracy to many nations, particularly over the past 15 years.

The terrorists have no ideas or ideals with which to combat freedom and democracy. So their only defense is to strike out against innocent civilians, destroying human life in massive numbers and hoping to deter all of us from our pursuit and expansion of freedom.

But the long-term deterrent of spreading our ideals throughout the world is just not enough, and may never be realized, if we do not act—and act together—to remove the clear and present danger posed by terrorism and terrorists.

…

We are a City of immigrants—unlike any other City—within a nation of immigrants. Like the victims of the World Trade Center attack, we are of every race, religion, and ethnicity. Our diversity has always been our greatest source of strength. It’s the thing that renews us and revives us in every generation—our openness to new people from all over the world.

So from the first day of this attack, an attack on New York and America, and I believe an attack on the basic principles that underlie this organization, I have told the people of New York that we should not allow this to divide us, because then we would really lose what this City is all about. We have very strong and vibrant Arab and Muslim communities in New York City. They are an equally important part of the life of our City. We respect their religious beliefs. We respect everybody’s religious beliefs—that’s what America’s about, that’s what New York City is about. I have urged New Yorkers not to engage in any form of group blame or group hatred. This is exactly the evil that we are confronting with these terrorists. And if we are going to prevail over terror, our ideals, principles, and values must transcend all forms of prejudice. This is a very important part of the struggle against terrorism.

This is not a dispute between religions or ethnic groups. All religions, all decent people, are united in their desire to achieve peace, and understand that we have to eliminate terrorism. We’re not divided about this.

Let us wonder whether someone as committed to diversity and open borders as Giuliani is can ever be truly serious about national defense. What we would have with a President Giuliani would just be more of what we have had with Bush: overseas interventions to spread democracy combined with open borders at home, with America itself—described as nothing but the belief in freedom and diversity—remaining defenseless, not only because of the open immigration to which Giuliani is wedded as to a religion, but, on a more profound level, because he has defined America as the belief that there is no such thing as America.

- end of initial entry -

Cindi S. writes:

Rudy Guiliani calls the enemy Islamic Fascists, which, true, is a tad bit better than referring to them as terrorists.

What else, I’d like to know, makes anyone think he’d be strong on a war against our enemies when he is an OPEN BORDERS PROPONENT??!!!

So, while we’re busy fighting them “over there,” he’s all for letting them in “over here.”

New York is a sanctuary city for illegals now under Bloomberg, it was a sanctuary city under Guiliani. What about “illegal alien” is unclear when it came to Rudy’s efforts to clean up crime in NYC?

I’m blue in the face now already from this discussion with various and sundry, including so-called conservatives, who only want to “win,” so when the subject of Guiliani’s negatives come up, they stick their fingers in their ears and hum war on terror, war on terror.

Aarrgghhh!!!

I’m done.

Andy K. writes:

Having read your posts about Giuliani, and reading his October 2001 speech to the UN, it suddenly occurred to me that Giuliani looks like a perfect merger of our last two Presidents, Clinton and George W. Bush, neatly combined into one new copy. His immoral private life reminds me of Clinton & Lewinsky, and his views on the war on terror remind me of Bush and the neocons. Plus, he repeats the same boring PC pablum regarding diversity as a great strength and America as a nation of immigrants that Clinton and Bush always said.

It sounds as if Giuliani could clone himself and run against himself as a Democrat, and there wouldn’t be much of a difference. Chalk up another victory for modern liberalism, and its influence on what our two major party’s leaderships are supposed to believe in. Giuliani may be the perfect candidate for America’s elites.

Bruce B. writes:

We are hostage to neocon nation-crushers because they talk the toughest. This is how the jihadists will get us. Remember that crap about Bush being a super-genius performing some sort of infinitely-complex rope-a-dope?

Anyway, how “tough on terror” would Giuliani be compared to the alternative? Wouldn’t any candidate do the homeland security minimum to prevent a large-scale terrorist attack? Hillary might do it with more bitterness and whine more about the rape of civil liberties. But I don’t imagine any candidate is going to want to be the one who allows the next 9-11. I doubt any of the candidates will dismantle the DHS infrastructure. And what we’re doing over here (not over there) has kept us safe, at least for now.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 15, 2007 10:52 AM | Send