Rudy Giuliani took another important step toward securing the Republican Party’s presidential nomination when he addressed a crowd of more than 2,000 religious conservatives in Washington, D.C., Saturday. If he manages to court even a segment of the religious right, he’ll almost assuredly win the Republican presidential nomination. Despite his frontrunner status, I have to wonder: What do Republicans see in Mr. Giuliani?
As far as I can tell, Mr. Giuliani has gained support because of his record as mayor of New York City, as well as his performance on Sept. 11 and thereafter. I’m going to leave Sept. 11 and the terrorism issue aside for the moment, and take a closer look at Mr. Giuliani’s record as mayor. As we’ll see, his legacy isn’t nearly as rosy as many believe.
During his run, Mr. Giuliani has spent a significant amount of time both distancing himself from the city he calls home, and yet still taking credit for the revitalization of New York under his guidance.
Last week, The New York Times published an article in which it underlined the often-tortured relationship between Mr. Giuliani and New York City since he has left office. In it, Mr. Giuliani describes New York as a “devastated” and “depressed” city when he was elected. He argued that he was elected not because the people of New York agreed with him, but rather because they disagreed with his ideas.
Twisted logic aside, he’s right about New York’s renaissance during his mayoralty. Throughout the 90s, crime rates fell, and the economy of New York underwent a renewal. However, Mr. Giuliani isn’t nearly as responsible for the revival of New York City as he would have us believe.
Let’s take the issue of crime rate first. Mr. Giuliani is correct — the crime rate fell during his mayoral term. However, crime began falling in 1992, two years before he took office. Furthermore, it fell throughout the entire United States — not just in New York City. The majority of the reduction was due to a cause that two economists recognized in their now-famous 2001 study.
Stephen Levitt and John Donohue put forth a novel explanation for the drop in violent crime throughout the nation. They noticed that the crime rate began to fall in the United States (including New York) in the early 90s. Sociologists and criminologists (and mayors) attributed the drop to novel police tactics or the economic boom of the 90s, among other explanations. However, Messrs. Levitt and Donohue identified a completely different — not to mention, controversial — reason for the significant and ubiquitous drop in crime. Crime was falling because of the infamous 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade.
Obviously, this isn’t what Mr. Giuliani would like you to believe. Frankly, I had a hard time acknowledging an apparently positive side effect from Roe v. Wade myself. It seems a bit perverse, but nevertheless, the evidence supporting the claim is convincing.
Similarly, the economic revival experienced in New York City was less a product of Mr. Giuliani’s policies than it was a result of a nationwide economic resurgence. As the capital of the American economy — and in many ways, capital of the global economy — New York City stood to benefit most from the incredible growth and prosperity experienced throughout the decade.
Mr. Giuliani’s tax cuts were undoubtedly helpful to economic growth, but the $4.8 billion deficit he left his successor does little to help his economic legacy. Giuliani supporters will argue that this deficit was the result of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the downturn in the economy in 2000. However, in his final budget, released in June 2001, he projected a deficit of $2.8 billion, a full $500 million larger than the deficit he inherited in 1994. The economy turned sour a year earlier, giving the mayor plenty of time to restructure his budget to maintain a projected surplus.
He failed to recognize the changing economic environment and incurred the large deficit. That doesn’t exactly leave the impression of a fiscal conservative, which is what Republicans should look for in 2008, seeing as they haven’t had one in the Oval Office for quite some time.
Rudy Giuliani points to his New York record as proof of his worthiness as a presidential candidate. Undoubtedly, Mr. Giuliani was an important player in New York’s revival, but he isn’t nearly as responsible for its resurgence as he claims to be. If he secures the Republican Party’s nomination, it will be in spite of, rather than because of, his record as mayor of New York City.
Corey Sheahan ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and economics.





IP hash: 19ab3012
Remember when Giuliani was running against Hillary Clinton for senate in 2000? Remember how he dropped out, nearly at the last minute, because he wanted to focus on his prostate cancer? Remember how he was getting thrashed in a head-to-head match up with Hillary and likely needed to save face for any glimmer of political future?
Republicans, nominate Giuliani, you’ll be doing the Democrats a huge favor. Actually, nominate any of your old white dudes, it really doesn’t matter.
IP hash: 65476520
But according to this reasoning it just so happened, all coincidentally at the same time, that crime dropped so much, welfare was reformed so dramatically, taxes dropped, busniness and the economy boomed, and the quality of life improved, all by happenstance at the same time, with the person in charge having nothing to do with it. The moon, the stars, and the planets all just happened to lined up at the same time. Who believes that?
Also, Giuliani was one of the most succesful prosecutors in the entire history of humankind. You kind of left that out.
IP hash: 6fabc93d
“all by happenstance at the same time, with the person in charge having nothing to do with it”
This is why people say Clinton did not deserve credit for the booming economy of the ’90s. You cannot have it both ways.
IP hash: 5916408d
“all by happenstance at the same time, with the person in charge having nothing to do with it”
Be careful here… Look what your statement can lead to logically:
I suppose FDR doesn’t deserve any credit for a victorious US during WWII.
I also suppose that Hitler doesn’t deserve any condemnation for being in charge of Nazi Germany during WWII.
I suppose Reagan doesn’t deserve any credit for sooner ending the Cold War.
I suppose Clinton doesn’t deserve any credit for fiscal responsibility during the 90s and neither does the GOP congress.
I suppose our current President doesn’t deserve any condemnation for anything at all.
Sorry, but you can’t make leaders accountable to “the buck stops here” without assigning them both the praise and criticism that comes with such responsibility.
-David Lapidus
IP hash: 323e62c7
I wanna see Giuliani and Reno box again.
IP hash: 65476520
Quote: Remember how he was getting thrashed in a head-to-head match up with Hillary and likely needed to save face for any glimmer of political future?
Every poll was a dead heat. Do some research please.
IP hash: 2451363d
First off,I actually lived in NYC during both the Dinkins and Rudi years. I saw Rudi literally run the Mafia off the map (jailing John Gotti and others) as DA, then he totally cleaned up Manhattan as Mayor.
Overnight, the panhandlers and homeless were off the streets (and into shelters and community centers where they received proper services and care). For the first time in decades the people of NY felt safe. After 9/11 we were also proud too.
This is clearly the opinion of some student who’s the farthest he’s ever been away from home (one hour away!), read some text books on New York in the 90’s, and is now an expert with insight to share. Hey, try taking a trip to Manhattan sometime, or simply ask a New Yorker (they’re not as scary and mean as you think).
*By the way, I vote Democrat and definately won’t vote for Rudi. Just get your facts right on New York City from now on.
IP hash: aeb5bfbb
why are people attempting to refute the “happenstance” quote when it A. was quite obviously facetious and B. does not appear in the article, only in a comment?
IP hash: 2702e2dd
5:39 —
Because Republicans are crybabies and whine anytime someone points out truths about their political candidates.