Rudy as Nixon

Henry Farrell pushes an analogy between Nicholas Sarkozy and Richard Nixon that he also floated during a diavlog with Mark Schmitt. A clearly analogy, in my mind, and also in that of this Jonah Goldberg reader, is between Nixon and Rudy Giuliani. Conservative affection for Giuliani seems to be grounded almost entirely in the sense that as mayor of New York City, Giuliani stuck it to liberals (which he did), rather than in a sense that anything in Giuliani's record suggests he would cope with the issues facing the federal government in an effective-yet-conservative manner.

As with Nixon on race and the southern strategy, the basic issue with Giuliani, cultural issues, and the conservative base is whether or not the base will doom what's transparently a cynical sell out as good enough. Last, but by no means least, as with Nixon important parts of Giuliani's persona seem to be driven by personal and somewhat idiosyncratic resentments rather than anything substantive. Obviously, when the name "Nixon" comes up, one's thoughts turn to Watergate and related crimes, and these parallels between the two figures don't necessarily speak to that issue.

Comments

I think Giuliani's performance on 9/11 has something to do with it. Also the huge crime drop in NYC during his time in office.

Posted by tequila | February 7, 2007 9:33 AM

The conservative base has a real fetish with 9/11. No one can scratch that itch like Rudy can.

Posted by JimW | February 7, 2007 9:52 AM

Agree wholeheartedly. The Nixon comparison, both good and bad, really does work.

Posted by Tony V | February 7, 2007 9:53 AM

Did anyone see this recent Village Voice article on Giuliani and 9/11? It argues pretty persuasively that his response that morning was actually disorganized and at times counterproductive.

Not that I expect these kinds of facts to puncture the "America's Mayor" image, but it's interesting how a few pitch-perfect moments (marching through the streets covered in dust, those controlled, sorrowful press conferences) can cement a perception of leadership with or without any demonstrably good decisions being made...

Posted by Chris Conway | February 7, 2007 10:03 AM

Conservative affection for Giuliani seems to be grounded almost entirely in the sense that as mayor of New York City, Giuliani stuck it to liberals (which he did)

Ummm ... allow me to channel what my gf, who lived in NYC during the Giuliani mayoralship (and still lives there) would say if she spent more time on these here internets: "conservative" affection for Giuliani is grounded in his appeals to racism and his authoritarian persona. It isn't that he stuck it to liberals that appeals to conservatives, but that he kept brown people, er, "the criminal element" away from white people, er "fine upstanding citizens".

Sometimes it frightens me how much all the socially conservative invective against gay marriage and secular abortionists sounds just like the tirades against miscegenation and us Jewsians of days not so long ago. So even if Giuliani is "liberal" on issues of abortion and gay marriage, he's still appealing to the reactionary base because he's still using the right words, even if in a different context: the code is still understood. Remember St. Ronnie's Philadelphia and Bitburg trips? Let's just say they didn't hurt him with the base.

And yes, I agree with the Nixon comparison. Remember, Nixon, even as he rode the wave of reactionary Southern conservatism, was never really such a conservative himself. So what worked for Nixon may very well work for Giuliani.

Posted by DAS | February 7, 2007 10:28 AM

DAS, Agreed, in spirit if not magnitude. I was struck when Bloomberg apologized to Sean Bell's family after he got shot 50 times at his bachelor party---Giuliani had a strict policy of never apologizing for overzealous policing. I don't think he even apologized to Abner Louima.

Posted by Chris Conway | February 7, 2007 10:37 AM

Giuliani had a strict policy of never apologizing, period. He was also a big fan of implementing policies that 'stuck it to' the first amendment.

Posted by daveNYC | February 7, 2007 10:58 AM

I wish I could be confident that Rudy's stands on a handful of hot-button social issues and a personal life that slaps the "family values" crowd in the face would derail his drive for the nomination, but I can't be. Although I would have put it differently, I think DAS has it just about right. Rudy's persona is that of an "us versus them" authoritarian ass-kicker, which is just what the wingnuts want. I fear that our mullahs will provide Rudy just enough cover so the wingnuts can swallow their scruples and vote for him.

Posted by CJColucci | February 7, 2007 11:04 AM

A little bit off-topic, but the thought occurred to me: who was the last President not to have won his home state? Gore, of course, did not win Tennessee - but then, he didn't become President, neither. Going back through the 20th C., I couldn't think of one, and when I actually searched for it I just got bored, because they always carry their home states. Rudy, by contrast, would zero chance of carrying New York. Neither would any Republican, of course, but then - parties tend to not usually nominate Presidential candidates from states firmly in the control of the opposition.

Posted by jkd | February 7, 2007 11:22 AM

Personally I've always seen Nixon as a tragic figure.

Posted by MNPundit | February 7, 2007 12:29 PM

You mean, like, its tragic that he ever became president?

Posted by Jim W | February 7, 2007 12:34 PM

I fear that our mullahs will provide Rudy just enough cover so the wingnuts can swallow their scruples and vote for him.

So even if Giuliani is "liberal" on issues of abortion and gay marriage, he's still appealing to the reactionary base because he's still using the right words[...]

And don't forget: "pro-choice" now means "supports state laws banning abortion for millions of women." Soon he'll explain to Sean Hannity that "liberal on gay marriage" means "let the homosexuals kiss one another goodbye before their execution by the state Jesus militia."

Posted by mds | February 7, 2007 12:46 PM

I agree with MNPundit, Nixon was, in the classical sense, a tragic figure: he had many redeaming qualities but the same drive to "show them" which drove him to ride the wave of the silent majority into the White House, also made him paranoid in a way that contributed to his fall, which was also abetted because neither the moderate wing nor the right wing of the GOP ever fully trusted him as one of their own.

This is the difference with Giuliani and Nixon. Giuliani ain't tragic: not in the classical sense. He is Churchillian, though (although Churchill was a wit in a way Giuliani doesn't seem to be). Which makes him look good to some people. But let's not forget that other than in his moment in the grand spotlight, Churchill was generally someone who Cheney'd things up and whom the British couldn't even wait until the war ended to get rid of ...

Posted by DAS | February 7, 2007 1:04 PM

The thin skin and the resentment of and petty reaction to criticism are very reminiscent of Nixon. And I could very easily see Giuliani resurrecting those Imperial Presidency White House Guard uniforms that Nixon loved so much. Excepting the first time is farce and the second time is tragedy. We haven't had an Italian president yet, have we?

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | February 7, 2007 1:13 PM

I'll bet the million or so Vietnamese peasants that Nixon bombed back to the stone age would agree that he is a very tragic figure.

Posted by Jim W | February 7, 2007 1:19 PM

Exactly, to the poster above. Authoritarianism and keeping black & latino people "in their place" was at the heart of Rudy's conservative appeal. (And for what it's worth, the crime rate started to drop under Dinkins, and has stayed down under Bloomberg while it's gone up everyplace else. So, clearly, it wasn't the magic of Rudy. Apparently, it was the BLACK mayor Dinkins.)

And frankly, while Rudy's public statements on 9/11 were great, his LEADERSHIP wasn't.

He's the guy who put the city in the terrible position of not having a command center on 9/11.

In the late 90's, Rudy decided to create a new multi-million dollar emergency response center on a high floor of WTC7, one of the buildings which fell down on 9/11. There are newspaper reports of people saying at the time: "This is a shitty idea. These buildings have been bombed by terrorists, what kind of idiot puts an emergency response center in a high rise--much less a high-rise with a bulls-eye on it?"

And, of course, there center itself was unnecessary--the police used to have a good one at 1 police plaza (which, um, was three blocks from ground zero and DIDN'T fall down on 9/11). Of course, if you're in a PR pissing match with the Chief of Police, why not shut down the great existing command center, and spend millions installing a new one in a totally unsuitable location?

There's a new center someplace in Brooklyn, to replace the one that fell down because Rudy put it in the goddam stupidest place imaginable. There is also a secret backup center at an undisclosed location--which I assume is NOT WTC6.

I'm not even mentioning that the police radios & fire radios that didn't work, so that hundreds of cops and firemen died because they didn't get the evacuation order? Yeah, Rudy knew they didn't work in high-rises. They'd NEVER worked in high rises. Not that he did shit about it.

But man oh man, I cannot WAIT until he runs. The FBI has been taping his dear buddie Bernie for years. Those tapes must have amazing conversations.

Nobody is more excited about Rudy's candidacy than NYC's local media. Seriously, they are gonna sweep the investigative journalism awards. This guy is COMPLETELY crooked, and he's very sloppy. There is no love for him, and the media guys here cannot wait to tear him down.

Posted by anonymous | February 7, 2007 1:21 PM

Nixon was never the suck-up Dracula is. Nixon had more depth. Nixon was better looking. Nixon could play the piano. And, in his personal life- Nixon was a gentleman whereas this potchicaloupe's a weasel. Now, if you compared him to Richard Speck...

Posted by Trevor | February 7, 2007 1:30 PM

Much of the appeal of Rudy is that he gave good press conference on 9/11 while the President and just about everybody else, including you and me, were in a daze. The media blew it all out of proportion, but it's not completely nugatory in evaluating his leadership skills.

The other thing in his favor is that he attacked crime in an active and intelligent manner. We know now he had the wind at his back and that crime in NYC would have come at least some of the way down anyway, although the decline in NYC crime rates is so spectacular that Rudy can plausibly claim some credit. I realize that commenters here will state that to worry about crime is a just a racist hallucination, but that's just hypocrisy. Every single person in America worries about crime when they are in the real estate market. To rule crime out of consideration in public policy discourse is simply hypocritical.

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 7, 2007 3:15 PM

A bit off topic, but which party has the strongest frontrunners in terms of "political base appeal?" I'd think the Dem "big three" have the edge since Edwards & Obama are bona-fide liberals with a sunny personality; there ought to be genuine support for Hillary Clinton too, if she wins the nomination. In contrast, none of the big GOP candidates really "bonds" with the conservative base. McCain is old and has been a thorn in the side to his own party's partisans for a long time ... the GOP Joe Lieberman if you like. Giuliani is a social liberal. Mitt Romney is a Massachusetts flip-flopper at best, a Mormon apostate at worst (=if you are a Christian fundamentalist, that is).
---
The wild card is foreign policy of course. Right now it seems McCain and Giuliani are at a major disadvantage since both candidates have been enthusiastic advocates of the current Administration's neoconservative foreign policy. Even fairly significant improvements in Iraq probably won't change the situation. Alas, another major terrorist attack could completely change the dynamics of the 2008 race.

MARCU$

Posted by MARCU$ | February 7, 2007 3:33 PM

NYC crime down = Bill Bratton (read the HBS casestudy)
I almost hope Giuliani wins in 2008 just to see if he
would argue he needs to stay on as president another three months after his term expires.

Posted by read Grand Illusion | February 8, 2007 3:33 AM