Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani has somehow gained the reputation of being "the liberal" in the GOP field, based on his positions on abortion and gay rights.

This reflects two political phenomena: 1) how far the Republican Party has lurched to the Right (see Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson's excellent book Off-Center for a keen analysis of this) and 2) how the commercial media have narrowed the definition of "liberal." At one point, "liberal" meant more than gender issues alone, as critical as they are. "Liberal" also meant support for worker rights and economic equality, and actively fighting against racism, among other concerns. But times have changed and many so-called liberals have lost any identification with the cause of workers or the poor.

But the supposedly Giuliani has employed barely-veiled racism at times, as when he addressed a crowd of white New York police officers, many of them drunk and carrying racist banners, to oppose a civilian review board to investigate NYPD abuses against mostly African-American citizens. Wayne Barrett, one of the few journalists to critically examine Giuliani's record, uncovered a "vulnerability study" that Giuliani's own campaign conducted on their candidate's weak spots. The study stated: "Giuliani's shrieking performance at the copy rally may be his greatest political liability this year. Giuliani has yet to admonish those who attacked the mayor with racist code words on signs and banners. Why not?"

Instead, Giuliani proceeded to maintain the racial polarization and regularly label African-American Mayor David Dinkins a "Jesse Jackson Democrat," a strategy that propelled him to victory as mayor. Once in office, Giuliani not only proposed cutting already-minimal welfare benefits, but, in the words of the NY Times 7/22/07, "suggested that many of the poor might profitably leave town." As Giuliani himself put it, "A natural consequence of a reduction in benefits might very well be that that would happen. That would be a good thing."

But Giuliani is not alone in pursuing a new urban vision where the presence of the poor --especially African-Americans and Latinos--is minimized and their influence marginalized. It boils down to ethnic and class cleansing. After Hurricane Katrina, several local leaders in New Orleans openly expressed the view that the devastation provided an opportunity to purge the city of many of its poor. NY Times columnist David Brooks, along with local New Orleans-area planners, openly spoke of the "silver lining" of Katrina--the chance to reshape the city without the troublesome African-American rabble. (I discuss this view of "Disposable People" in more depth in the forthcoming issue of Extra!, published by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.)