Giuliani’s secret weapon
Over at the very respectable City Journal, Rudy Giuliani has just published an essay (more like a white paper) that is supposed to get him some attention in the presidential race. The subject, as expected, is homeland security, and most of it is very well-done, if boring – until the end. Giuliani says any homeland security plan needs to focus on “prevention, preparedness, and resilience,” and that’s what his essay discusses. The last one – resilience – is the freshest and most intriguing.
A resilient society depends on active, engaged citizens. The way for Washington to encourage resilience is not to throw more money at problems or to place new burdens on business. Government should harness the inherent strength of the American people and the private sector in order to build a society that may bend-but not break-if catastrophe does strike.
The American people are ready, willing, and able to take a more active role in our civil defense. As the White House’s own Lessons Learned report on the federal response to Hurricane Katrina notes, faith-based organizations and community groups successfully provided support to the victims of the hurricane “in spite of, not because of, the government.” Within 72 hours of Katrina’s hitting the Gulf Coast, for instance, a faith-based nonprofit organization-Helping Americans Needing Disaster Support (Hands)- formed to speed delivery of supplies to victims. Just a week after being created, Hands was sending 75 truckloads of supplies for every one FEMA truckload.
Giuliani’s secret weapon in this campaign is his focus on the future, on what’s to be done about this and that. Ron Paul sometimes seems stuck in the past (a rhetorical no-no if you’re trying to get people to elect you in the future), Huck and Mitt seem stuck in the present-tense of who’s the more likable Christian (another rhetorical no-no that lessens discussion of the future). Plans like Giuliani’s might seem less interesting than the Mormon vs. Baptist thing, but Giuliani keeps his rhetoric in the future tense (What’s to be done), and that just might get him elected.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top25 Comments to “Giuliani’s secret weapon”
I think he’s on to something. It’s that kind of message that got Bill Clinton elected, and it’s the lack of which that is hampering Democrats who seem to only attack George Bush – who isn’t even running…
Report comment to moderator
All the Republican candidates have spoken long and often in the future tense (What’s to be done), but most have been more diversified in their future tense rhetoric than Guiliani who has been more single-mindedly focused on his main topic–national and homelad security. I prefer the broad-based future focus myself.
Report comment to moderator
I think a future focus is good. But find for me please a candiate with the kahonies to say “Well folks as I look back over the last few years, let me cite for you the areas where we SCREWED UP COLOSSALLY and let me tell you what should have happened and why it didnt..” And more importantly why such a goof-up wont ever happen again if I’m in charge.
In explaining why something failed, these air-brushed chaps will at long last reveal what their convictions are and why they hold them.
“Where we screwed up is having our INS expend so much time on Elian Gonzales while we let Mohammed Atta and his pals roam free with fake IDs and expired student visas..”
Report comment to moderator
Resilience is a personal characteristic of someone who moves on from one failed family to the next marriage and the next, or who sells himself as America’s gunslinger after he misplaces his command center beneath al Qaeda target number one. Resilience isn’t created by tax cuts for the top 5% of incomes, nor is it killed by lawsuits against people who commit wrongful hurts against others. Resilience isn’t a product of guhment,
Report comment to moderator
“a noun, a verb and 9/11″ — a quote that will kill him because its short and simple and has a huge element of truth.
Report comment to moderator
Henry Lord Scroop of Masham, you speak of “top 5% of incomes”. Why does it matter what percentile one’s income falls in? It only matters if there is some thing called a “national income” that everybody earns and that everybody is entitled to an equal slice of. But there is no such thing. I earn an INDIVIDUAL income. I file an INDIVIDUAL tax return. I don’t just sign some huge national return that somebody else prepares. And why is that? Because individual gifts and work determine income.
Since you seem to think that anybody in the top 5% of income is nothing more than a lazy fat cat, it may interest you to know that the 95% percentile is only $120K per year. These are not hedge fund managers and trust fund babies, but hardworking doctors, small business owners, managers and engineers. Why do you hunger so to penalize them for their success?
Charity should be individual, not governmental.
Report comment to moderator
Although I am still “undecided” on which Republican candidate I will support, I spent some of my holiday reading “War Footing” by Frank Gaffney. It is one of many books out now with recommendations on how to win the far against Islamic Facism.
I believe that my vote will go to the candidate that is the strongest on National Security. To me this is the over arching issue of our time.
I tend to think that Guiliani has the ability to construct a coherent policy in this area and the courage and political savvy to implement it.
His comments here with are forward looking are an indicator of this attribute.
Report comment to moderator
Hello there, John M. I think you have discovered a conspirator.
Taxes aint your income or my income, they our income. That’s the nature of the contract known as government of the people by the people and for the people. Taxes are a fee on your enfranchisement in an economy which is made possible by all of us. We could argue about this, blah, blah, but I think you’d acknowledge it’s a defensible position, even if it’s not one you prefer.
But why is the progressive personal income tax, rather than a flat rate tax, a good thing? Because individual gifts and effort are part of the story. A bigger part is the value of the franchise. Individual gifts and effort are distributed throughout all populations from the genetic pool. Players compete for pieces of the franchise, yet the size of one’s income depends on the size of everybody else’s income, or the magnitude of the franchise. The whole is not the sum of individual gifts and effort, but is a product of place and history. The economy is a collective system that we inherit, use, build upon, and pass on. Some of us die for it (or from it) before they personally benefit.
Futhermore, income at the top is related to organization and postion rather than to any proportion of talent and effort. Top taxes don’t penalize, they recognize the reward the rich receive from the franchise.
Currently, families on the 50 yard line are penalized by payroll taxes and sales taxes, yet they make only about $40,000, which is a stack of $100 bills 1.6 inches high.
Families on the 95 yard line get $100,000 which is a stack of about 4 inches high. You’re right, John M., this is still not an awful lot. This is the lower right corner of the “L curve” of income distribution. This is the point at which I want the graduated personal income tax to kick in.
At the 99 yard line the income is about $300,000, a stack of $100 bills about a foot high. About a foot from the goal line, the stack reaches $1million — a 40 inch stack. From there, the stack keeps going up, and reaches a height of 30 miles.
The deal is, also, when your stack is 30 miles high, you can’t hang onto it anymore without some help from people located on other yard lines, and you still can make more by paying off the IRS than by moving to Somalia and hiring a bunch of boys with weapons to ride around on your compound in technicals.
Report comment to moderator
JONWATTS —
In order to talk about the future, Republicans really should talk about it rather than just mouth “morning in America.’ No mater what verb tense they use, their subject is always the pet eternal theories. The quality of government is fixed. Bad things are the effect of bad people. You better look out for yourself.
GOP candidates have all outdone each other trying to represent the Reagan brand, which young people don’t seem to be buying. David Brooks says Romney’s “failure of imagination” means that he literally has no political future — he’s already lost. Giuliani is trying to tell people that America is a vacuum which happens to bear the shape of his positive personal characteristics. Resilience, or whatever. Is that a plan for the future?
Report comment to moderator
John M at #6:
Since you seem to think that anybody in the top 5% of income is nothing more than a lazy fat cat, it may interest you to know that the 95% percentile is only $120K per year. These are not hedge fund managers and trust fund babies, but hardworking doctors, small business owners, managers and engineers. Why do you hunger so to penalize them for their success?
It’s not about penalizing them (one of the most pernicious myths of the flat tax proponents) it’s about ability to contribute.
According to the IRS tax rate chart, someone earning up to $7,550 (taxable income after all deductions and exemptions) pays 10 percent. 10 percent of that top figure is $755, leaving them just $6,795.
Someone making $120,000, which is where you identified the beginning of the top 5 percent, would fall in the third bracket of five and pay $1,507.50 and 28 percent of the amount over $74,200. That works out to $14,331.50, leaving our hardworking doctor with $105,668.50. Hardly starving in the dirt.
To whom much is given, much is required. It’s not punitive, it’s the philosophy that the more you have, the more you can contribute to the nation in which you live.
Report comment to moderator
Yes.. but if you take that money out of circulation, it does less good, and generates less tax money than leaving it in circulation.
Report comment to moderator
#11: It’s not “out of circulation,” though. It’s being spent by the government, in the form of salaries, purchases and contracts.
Every business that contracts to the government benefits economically by the government having money to hire it. Every wage-earner who works for an agency gets paid directly out of those tax dollars, and spends it right back into the economy. Every equipment supplier that sells to the government earns some of that money.
The end result for us is roads, law enforcement, defense and a host of other services we expect the government to provide.
It’s not just money vanishing into a void. It’s still in the economy.
The alternative is to have a government that operates on good wishes and fairy dust, and that model has never been effective.
Report comment to moderator
Taxation is not a neutral event. The amount, type etc of tax helps direct the nations economic activity. For this reason gov’ts constantly give tax credits to reward people for certain activities. Hence, progressive tax policy reflects a recognition that a greater income means you have a greater stake in law, order, property value and rights etc and hence are charged a greater premium. You pay a certain rate to reflect the enormity of your loss if society fails.
Contrary to popular belief, money is not taken out of circulation when it is taxed. Its respent elsewhere and the manner of spending also allows the gov’t to direct economic activity. The question of whether money is comitting good or bac acts is entirely up to the spender. A drug dealer/buyer will certainly have a greater detrimental effect on the economy, as will conspicous consumption of luxury goods, than the gov’t repairing city infrastructure and policing. In this case money is best spent by the gov’t for better economic growth.
Report comment to moderator
Unless you keep your money under a mattress, it is never really taken out of circulation.
Report comment to moderator
The Republican and Democratic candidates are all basically clones of each other in terms of ideas (except maybe Ron Paul). Their Healthcare plans, Immigration plans, Iraq plans, Tax Plans, Environment plans, Education plans, etc. are mirror images of each other. The only difference would be who is best able to implement these plans.
If you agree with the republican or democratic vision then it only matters which candidate would be able to actually implement that plan. In fact, I am less concerned with which plan is chosen and more concerned that the person actually be able to implement the plan.
Which candidates to people see as being capable of implementing the plans. Here is my yes and no list.
Capable of implementing plans:
1. Biden – experienced, decisive, level-headed
2. Richardson – experienced in negotiation
3. Romney – successful in business and admin.
4. Giuliani – successful city admin.
5. McCain – willing to compromise
Possibly Capable of implementing plans:
1. Obama – inexperienced but hopeful
2. Dodd – not enough support
3. Gravel – not enough support
4. Hunter – not enough support
Not capable of implementing plans:
1. Clinton – too divisive
2. Huckabee – mistake-prone, will fail to compromise with democrats
3. Paul – too radical
4. Kucinich – UFOs might take him
5. Edwards – will be unable to work with republicans. Too socialistic.
6. Thompson
Report comment to moderator
Oops
Last one:
6. Thompson – lazy, unenthusiastic, will take more vacations than Bush (if that’s possible)
Report comment to moderator
I would be especially worried about Kucinich. Do we really want to have to use the line of succession because the President got abducted?
I agree with a lot of your list but I do have a few quibbles.
Giuliani is too divisive. He was effecive in New York because he strongarmed things in a way the president simply can’t do.
McCain is TOO willing to compromise. I think he’s lost his hold on his own values. Now he just seems kind of needy.
Clinton is probably too controversial to get the nomination. (I have never bought into the sense of inevitability that so many people seem to have about her.) But if by some miracle she did get elected, I think she’d be better at building consensus than you suggest.
I don’t think Edwards is really “socialistic.” But I do think he suffers from the same lack of experience as Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Theo,
My oh my, and what PROOF DO YOU HAVE?
Don’t tell us that you are running for anyting? Or are you just sitting back and arm chairing the whole group?…..LOL
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
How are they different in any of the following:
Healthcare plans, Immigration plans, Iraq plans, Tax Plans, Environment plans, Education plans
I am not interested in any of the following. Giuliani is pro-choice, Romney is Mormon, McCain and Thompson cheated on their wives.
Let’s talk about real plans. Actual plans that they plan to implement. They are the same.
Report comment to moderator
THEO Republican and Democratic candidates are all basically clones of each other in terms of ideas (except maybe Ron Paul). . . . 5. Edwards – will be unable to work with republicans. Too socialistic.
Your analysis is a bit chaotic. The R and D candidates are the same, but Edwards is too socialistic. Huh?
I think the two parties are headed towards the clarity of their irreconcilable differences. The Republicans in particular since 2006 have forsaken common ground. Democrats more slowly are awakening to the realization that doing things will require taking power rather than giving ground. The parties are headed to a political crisis in which one will win and the other lose.
Report comment to moderator
And all this time, I thought his “secret weapon” was his “fashion sense”.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
I meant that Republican candidates are all the same and the Democratic Candidates are all the same. Not that Republicans and Democrats are the same.
You are right though. If I am claiming that Edward is too socialistic than perhaps he is different from the other democrats.
Republicans have pretty much had their way with the Democrats. They still do. Pelosi and Reid are probably not the best choices for majority leaders. Both are spineless and corrupt.
The Republicans may have difficulty remaining the party for the rich and religious indefinitely. Either Huckabee or Giuliani could easily fracture the party into 2. Giuliani has the funding and infrastructure assosciated with the wealthy. Huckabee has the emotion and the “Christian” element of the religious right.
The Democrats could struggle to keep both hispanic and african american voters. Racial conflicts have been building steadily over issues of immigration, education, and property. Gang wars between Latinos and Blacks are on the rise. I could see difficulties in the future if racial relations don’t improve. Hillary, Obama, and Edwards have all struggled to appease both sides of the immigration issue.
Report comment to moderator
I enjoyed the trenchant analysis of taxation, and particularly the defenses of progressive taxation given by Scroop Moth, HRW, and SteveG above. Well said, all!
On Giuliani, the original focus of the post, however, I confess to being pretty uninformed, and I’ll have to check out his essay. Although I think either Huckabee or Romney will probably get the nomination, and I’ll probably vote for the Democratic nominee I think Rudy bears careful watching in case he gets the nod.
This little quote from him on freedom, in particular, scares the heck out of me:
“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.”
Didja catch that, and really think about it? You can’t “… be anything [you] can be..”, you have to give the authorities “… a great deal of discretion about what you do.”
“Freedom is about authority,” however, does have a great ring to it, although I can’t recall what other quote it reminds me of…
Report comment to moderator
23.
Scary quote.
It seems that any of the republican candidates would pull us in that direction. Fear is the tool that has allowed the Republican War Machine along with the Christian Right to become so powerful.
I hate to see religion used for political purposes. It carries too much emotion and has too much influence on the minds of the practicioners. Maybe that is why Huckabee scares me more than Giuliani. Unfortunately, some view attacks on Huckabee as attacks on Christianity in general. If Huckabee were to run against Clinton, it would be an intensely emotional campaign that some would view as Good vs Evil. A loss by either side would be extremely divisive for the country.
Report comment to moderator
. . . any of the republican candidates would pull us in that direction.
How dismal. Romney will “double” Guantanamo. All except McCain want a policy that adopts torture. All except McCain have bowed to Tancredo’s demand for expulsions of Mexicans. (According to Rep. King of Iowa even Papa Fred speaks of expulsions as necessary to reinforce sovereignty and authority. Tearful scenes of forced separation and transportation will be healthy lessons about “consequences,” King says.)
Republicans also want to split the Black and Mexican working class against each other. The Republican fight against government services, such as health care for working families, denies workers the common interests to join in a coalition.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!