Giuliani

I've been a New Yorker for most of my life. So I've had experiences with most of recent NYC mayors up until Bloomberg (I think he's been a great major.) Although I'm in my early thirties, I remember distinctly about the Giuliani administration, and my recollection of his administration is not a favorable one.


I consider myself a liberal whose breakfast is usually accompanied by NY Times, reading first from the Op-Ed section. At the same time, I make every attempt to be pragmatic on most issues and see from the point of view of the other side. It's not always easy but the upshot is that I learn tremendously, and it allows me to engage in debate with the other side more successfully.

The reason for all this exposition is that I've tried to see Giuliani’s run for the highest office in that same light that I see all the issues. After my struggle with his candidacy, I still can't imagine him being a good President should he become one. Here are my reasons.

First, I cannot shake off the image he indelibly left in my mind during his Brooklyn Museum incident, where he made every effort to cut off the city funding for the museum because it'd been exhibiting an art piece that seemed to him to be desecrating his religion - his argument being that any public funding should only be directed towards to those occasions that do not “offend” any specific group.

Now, I don't know about you but I do not think it is the role of a major, whose job is to represent all people in the city, to decide what to show and not to show in a museum based on his own belief or conviction, let alone about an art piece whose very existence is to broaden the horizon of one’s understanding of the world.

To my knowledge, he hasn't said anything remotely regretting his action. If anything, he probably still believes that he did the right thing and will probably do the same in the future. This is what frightens me the most - the prospect of doing this kind of thing again. How is this any different from the current Bush administration, which justifies its ill-conceived actions by rationalizing it - getting rid of habeas corpus, torturing of the prisoners in Iraq and Git-mo, using homosexuality and religion to divide the country for political gains (the list can go on but I'll stop.)

Second reason is that Giuliani is, in some ways, using 911 to ascent to the top political office. Many people may feel that this is fine as long as it's done respectfully, however, being a New Yorker who knew someone who passed on that day it only makes my blood boil to see a politician taking advantage of one of this nation's great tragedies. His campaign might not imply or suggest it's running the campaign on that idea but only a fool would think that Giuliani's not banking on it. After all, when 911 is evoked, the images of the twin tower being collapsed and Giuliani, in Bush's absence, giving press conferences as the makeshift leader of the country would immediately come to the minds of most Americans. I understand it'd be very difficult for any candidate to resist the impulse to use that as the basis for one’s platform but being a New Yorker I cannot give him the nod on this one. If this is so, he is no better than the current administration, which rings the 911 bell every time it tries to achieve something politically, not to mention using it to go to war in Iraq.

The last but the most important reason - his tendency to reward people based on their loyalty. One example, his record on crime in NYC is a very good one, and it's clear enough that he's counting on that record to boost his image as the marshall President who can safely guard and control the border from the torrorists within and without. However, I must take issue with this as well. Most NYPD believe that the credit for the low crime rate should really go to the former NYC Police Commissioner William Bratton, now LA Chief of Police. I'm told Bratton had done much to change the NYC police before he got the boot from Giuliani as Bratton was becoming more popular than Giuliani.

Bratton instinctively knew the streets of NYC, especially the ghettos. He was able to understand the sentiments of the neighborhoods during that time, which Giuliani had no idea as his response to Diallo case and other similiar incidents showed (what a contrast to Bloomberg.) If it weren’t for the green-eyed monster, why would he fire a well-respected Police Commissioner? A recent New York Times article reports that Giuliani, due to his acrimonious relationship with Bratton and the effect it might have on his campaign, might be mending fences with Bratton as he intensifies his push for Presidency. Politically very calculated move I'd say but, nonetheless, a clear mark of an opportunist.

As opposed to rewarding people for their skills and hard work, he showed a tendency that's reminiscent of the Bush administration – prize people for their loyalty, even if their qualification is questionable ("Brownie, you are doing a heck of a job," "Rumsfeld is the greatest Secretary of Defence in history...," Alberto Gonzales - who authorized the use of torture, the firing of eight well-respected US attorneys on unspecified and unreasonable ground only to be replaced by his loyalists who are not qualified to be on the job, many of his cabinet members who are made up of ideologues, and giving out no-bid contracts to his biggest campaign donors and close associates etc...)

Giuliani’s tendency to prize his loyalists showed itself prominently with Bernard Kerik, who, as we all know by now, is a crook. Giuliani, to his credit, explained that he was not aware of Kerik's past doings. But let’s be honest here, does anybody believe that for a second? After all, Kerik was Giuliani's point-men during his administration. Most of Kerik's connections were made because of his connection with Giuliani. Either Giuliani was stupid or he just ignored it, the two attributes that I can, very conveniently, associate with the Bush administration.

However, even more astonishing is that he pushed Kerik for Homeland Security's top position knowing Kerik was clearly not qualified for it. After 911, Giuliani, being a former NYC major, should have known better than anybody else the importance of that position, but he pushed Kerik anyway because Kerik had the quality Giuliani deemed highest - loyalty.

Although, this is very early in the race, Giuliani has not done much to distill his old image from what is being portrayed. In fact, some of his positions now are in direct contrast to much more socially liberal positions he held in the past - women’s right to choose, civil union, religion etc... May be he will show more sensitivity to these issues and all the others as his campaign slowly rolls out. Thus far, however, I'm not convinced of his qualities as a sound leader. He may be a social liberal, but he hasn't shown the leadership quality that last six years America sorely needed in its top political office. After all, why would we want another Bush in the office?

Nonetheless I’m very open-minded about his campaign. If he can somehow prove that he’s of different species than Bush, I will be more than willing to lend my ear. After all, he has done many wonderful things for NYC especially during when the planes hit the towers, although some of his actions are thrown into doubt. I am just not comfortable with a few issues that have shaped his image. Unlike some people, I am not at all concerned about his private life. His life behind the scene has nothing to do with his ability to become an effective leader. After all, Presidential elections is not a soap opera, although it may look like one. However, as his presidential ambitions go, I’m hoping that he can prove me wrong.