5.10.00
Rudy Can Fail

5.08.00
Today, Everyone's Pro-Life

5.05.00
You Can Call Me Al Gone

5.03.00
Voices Carry

5.01.00
Double Vision

4.28.00
A Message From You, Rudy

4.27.00
Gore Keeps Getting Clintoned

4.25.00
Can I Get A Witness?

4.24.00
Freeze Frame

4.19.00
Getting Away With It

4.17.00
Everyday I Write the Book...

4.14.00
Living Through Another Cuba

4.12.00
Killing In The Name Of...

4.10.00
Broadway Blues

4.07.00
Conservatism Go Boom?

4.05.00
Begala's Baby-Boomer Blues

4.03.00
Hagel-ian Logic: Bush's Ideal V.P.

3.31.00
Back Stabbin' Games People Play

3.29.00
The Ink Is Black, The Page Is White

3.27.00
Pleased to Meet You

3.23.00
Diallo II?

5/10/00 12:55 p.m.
Rudy Can Fail
Conservatism compromised.

Robert A. George is an editorial page writer
for the New York Post--------------------------------------------RAGGEDmail@aol.com

side from the sight of several pro-choice politicians wriggling in their seats as Cardinal Law reminded the congregation of the importance of life, there was one other memorable moment at Cardinal O'Connor's funeral.

Before the ceremony began, the VIPs went to their seats. Oddly, former President George Bush was segregated off in a separate row of pews. Most of the other politicians were seated near one another. New York Mayor and likely GOP Senate candidate Rudy Giuliani came in, shook hands with his Senate opponent, First Lady Hillary Clinton, and President Bill Clinton.

As the mayor took his place in a pew just behind the president, an odd thought sprang to mind: Some mischievous individual responsible for allocating tickets to the standing-room-only cardinal's funeral must have decided that there needed to be a cordoned-off adultery section.

Like it or not, the latest installment in the soap opera that is the New York Senate race — the Rudy-has-a-friend chapter — should, at the very least, cause conservatives some concern.

Now, everyone admits that there are serious differences between Clinton's Monica and Giuliani's Judith. One is about perjury, obstruction, yada, yada, yada. The other one is, seemingly, only about adultery.

Oh, well, that's different. Hooray for adultery.

Liberals love to repeat the mantra that, in light of Monicagate, Americans have become more like the French when it comes to extra-marital dalliances. Slate's Michael Kinsley is the most notorious booster of this theory. We are told that this is supposed to be a good thing.

Now, while Giuliani's relationship with his "friend" is, on its face, far less tawdry than a Commander-In-Chief fooling around with an intern, the truth is that it is the Giuliani liaison which actually invites more comparisons with French extra-marital situations. We all recall the fascinating scene at Francois Mitterand's funeral, where both his wife and mistress attended.

NR's redoubtable HillaryWatch states, "At least Rudy, family and Friend have enough respect for their constituents to be forthright and honest."

That raises an interesting question. Would the average American wife prefer to be lied to, if evidence appeared that her husband were having an "inappropriate relationship," or would she prefer to hear that he just has a "very good friend," with whom he allegedly spends his weekends and who accompanies him for his cancer screenings? Would it be more forthright and honest to separate officially if a marriage is apparently over? Yes, these are intensely personal matters. Yet, not too long ago, both the left and the right believed that what went on in one's private life had an impact on one's public behavior. The left apparently abandoned that belief during the impeachment drama. Is the right about to do the same?

Thanks to Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani may not have a political problem. Compared to the Adulterer-In-Chief, the mayor's sins of the flesh appear mild indeed. But even if Bill Clinton has become the general standard, should conservatives be satisfied to accept his morality as the baseline for general conduct among right-of-center politicians?

In other words, are conservatives willing to be compromised on this particular situation involving personal conduct?

Because of who his opponent is, conservatives — social conservatives, in particular — have already had to swallow much in accepting Rudy Giuliani's candidacy. He is pro-gay rights in a party that, generally, is not. He is pro-choice in a party that is heavily pro-life. In fact, he even refuses to accept the compromise that has won over many pro-choicers (including the man he hopes to replace, Daniel Patrick Moynihan) — a ban on partial-birth abortion. Even libertarians have had to overlook something — his latest policy involving automatic seizure of the automobiles of not just drunk drivers, but drivers who have been ticketed for so-called "hazardous" driving.

Yet, because of who Hillary is — and his legitimately impressive record breaking the back of crime in New York City — conservatives have given more money to Rudy Giuliani than to any GOP candidate not named George W. Bush. At last count, the total was nearly $20 million.

Giuliani is undoubtedly the strongest candidate to run against Hillary Clinton, but conservatives have to guard against falling into the same trap that the liberals got into when they chose Bill Clinton as their standard-bearer. The trap is sprung when the desire to win at all costs overwhelms certain core principles upon which a party is built. Rudy Giuliani, character-wise, is certainly not Bill Clinton. But he is throwing a lot of the right's social issues completely aside. And now, he has a "friend."

Ever since the late 1970s, when the pro-life movement welded itself to a Republican party that was pro-business and anti-Communist, moral issues have been part of the party's message. Yes, it has often been a tense relationship, but the overall framework has held together. But now, the party's second-most-important November candidate is ignoring the moral part in both the platform and his private life.

Republicans can make all the rationalizations they want to show about how different the Giuliani "arrangement" is from the Clintons', but ultimately, that's all they are: rationalizations. In any other circumstance, they wouldn't hold any serious weight.

And if the right turns a blind eye toward the concept of the traditional family arrangement, what's next?

Of course, the question may not need to be answered. Rudy Giuliani may choose to accept a cancer treatment that takes him out of this year's Senate race. However, if he does go forward, conservatives will correctly rush to support the man running against Hillary Clinton. He may very well win. But, in such a case, does Rudy's success mean conservatism's failure? It may very well be that the price for accepting all manner of compromises is having a movement totally compromised.

Columns / Current Issue / Goldberg File / Nota Bene
Washington Bulletin / Subscribe / Ad Info / Home