Giulani is if anything more authoritarian and secretive than the Bush administration. Those of us who lived through his term, particularly his second term (or at least first the four and three-quarters years of it) saw him at his autocratic worst, attacking things apparently only for the mere reason that they offended him.
He managed to lose virtually all of the numerous First Amendment cases brought against him. This includes the Brooklyn Museum case, in which the courts held that his attempt to cut off funding was an inappropriate injection of religion into the public sphere. More perniciously, he tried to limit public protests and marches, and was repeatedly reversed.
As for public accountability in government, he repeatedly shut out oversight boards, the Democratic City Comptroller, and the public from access to government records. He limited access to government officials, controlling virtually all media contact through his office. Any attempt to communicate directly with the media was dealt with harshly, most famously when he fired his first Police Commissioner, Bill Bratton, because some of the spotlight from the crime reduction efforts was falling on Bratton, rather than him.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call him fascist, but he is certainly strongly authoritarian and controlling.
Since when does one preclude the other? I was drawing a contrast between them and Giuliani, and I think it’s a notable contrast. They have their ideals, and he mostly does what he wants.
I lived in NYC from 1992 - 2000. During that time, the city changed dramatically for the better in terms of crime and quality of life. The methods used to achieve this change may have been questionable, to be generous, but the results were indisputable. I’m not condoning violating civil rights in any way, but NYC is one difficult place to affect change and he did it. As a prosecutor he went up against organized crime and put some bad people away. He gets results. Is that a good enough reason to vote for him? I’m not sure yet. I really wish there were better choices on the Democratic ticket.
From what I recall of that, he wasn’t going after the Brooklyn Museum of Art because in their deliberate effort to court controversy with an exhibit named something of the sort, they managed to piss off a large part of the Catholic minority in the NYC area. It wasn’t simply Guiliani indulging his own personal biases, but also representing the opinions of a large number of constituents.
The piece that I recall hearing so much about at the time was the Madonna with elephant dung. From what I recall from the time, the arguments in favor of the piece included mentioning the role of elephant dung in soil fertility, and how that could fit in with how the Catholic faith often co-opted worship of local fertility goddesses into veneration of the Virgin.
And had that sort of explanation of the background been part of the exhibit, to defuse or explain how controversy can blind people to the values of different cultures, I’d have been of the opinion that it was over-the-top for anyone to remove funding. But when a public museum chooses pieces that seem to be calculated to simply offend the public at large, without any apparent effort (before the media-fed shit storm, that is.) to educate as well as titillate I am far less tolerant of the attitude, “We shouldn’t have to pay attention to the opinions of those idiots.”
ISTR hearing at the time that the artist was an East African, and was working within the bounds of his/her cultural traditions. Which is not the case: the artist is a white Englishman, and was trying to be provocative. Which is not a flaw in art, I agree. But when dealing with an emotional topic, like religious imagery, I think that the display could have been designed with more effort towards education as well as shock.
I don’t mean this as much of a defense of Guiliani - I believe that his good points (and he does have some.) are heavily outweighed by his bad. I do believe that while the courts may have found against Guiliani’s heavy-handed attempts to control the Brooklyn Museum of Art, I still think that the curator and museum as a whole failed to properly judge the effect that they were going to generate. Why the Hell can’t the public expect a publicly funded museum to follow the simple rule: Don’t be a jerk?
They are already calling McCain the Winner he is so far ahead. Rudy already conceded NH, but he made no secret about not campaigning hard in Iowa & NH. He is counting on Florida and Super Duper Tuesday.
Oh well that excuses it. He was the mayor. As far as I’m concerned, in that kind of situation his job should be to be the intermediary between museum and the people who were pissed. He is not the Art Police.
It was explained repeatedly. I know I was aware of it at the time living in the surburbs. People didn’t care. I think Giuliani’s behavior contributed to that, too.
Okay, Florida, I have not been happy with your electoral choices in the past decade. How’s about you finally do something right and put Rudy out of our misery? I want those ads to stop.
He was here not too long ago and he was talking to a group of veterans and he said that we need to build up our military. Well, I wonder where he proposes we get all these extra troops in order to build up the military?
Possibly (we call them Transit Police, now officially part of the NYPD, around here). I don’t recall every boneheaded, egomaniacal decision Mayor Giuliani made.
Ron Paul would not concede any such thing. The purpose of government from his point of view is to guarantee — not usurp — personal autonomy. Free people should be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way. That’s why stealing and murder and such is ethically wrong. It’s because the wrongdoer is forcing his own pursuits on others. Your rights end where my nose begins: that’s the essence of autonomy.
I am not afraid of art and I disapprove of any government official that takes it upon herself or himself to decide that I should be.
Although I usually vote for a Democrat, I remained respectful of Giuliani because I believed him to be reasonably liberal. Then I heard that his second wife found out that he was divorcing her when she heard about it on television. I thought that was really lame.
Then I heard that he had made some bad choices in his friendships and appointments or recommendations. And maybe the Police and Firemen weren’t as equipped with basics as they should have been on September 11. And wasn’t one of the major offices of emergency management located in one of the towers after it had already been a target of terrorists?
Then there seemed to be a misuse of funds spent on his soon-to-be third wife. There were too many things that just weren’t respectful of the common people.
I thought someone was really going too far when I saw the thread title. But what Giuliani had to say about authority and government just doesn’t sit well with me. In a government “of the people, for the people and by the people,” I get to look at his records; he doesn’t get to look at mine.
Thanks – especially to the Yanks – for fighting my ignorance with this thread.
The headquarters of the Office of Emergency Management was in one of the buildings that was destroyed on September 11. It was WTC 7, though, not one of the towers.
Zoe, if Giuliani somehow overcomes the other Republicans, the Democrats will have a field day digging up and discussing his handling of three events during his watch, Abner Louima, Patrick Dorismond, and Amadou Diallo. I may jokingly refer to Mayor Giuliani forcing a ban on ferrets through the NYC Dept of Health and his rabid anti-ferret owner tirade (easily found on YouTube, if you want to hear it) as the reason that I am against Giuliani, but I’m against him because he was a tyrant as mayor and the last thing anyone should do is give him more power.
The man has judgement! Look at his promotion of Bernie Kerik, the All American bullet headed Saxon mother’s son! Judgement! Not good judgement, maybe, but lots of it!