(The views and convictions of intelligent people evolve over time – Gingrich is different?)
I’m a conservative Republican. That comes as a big shock to you, I know. What you might find more surprising is that I voted for George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in ‘76 and ‘80, and Walter Mondale in 1984. The first Republican I voted for was George H.W Bush in ‘88. Let’s say my political views have changed. I like to think they’ve become more enlightened, and I believe history bears me out. My point is that people whose beliefs remain static, ignoring reality, are ideological dinosaurs. They cling desperately to concepts and visions of Utopia that simply don’t work in the real world. I think it unnecessary to specify who those people are today.
Newt Gingrich, who’s surging in the polls and stands a better than even chance of winning the Florida GOP primary on January 31st, is being raked over the coals because he identifies himself as a Reagan Republican, when ancient history shows he opposed the 40th President on some key issues. So what? A lot of people, including Republicans, did the same.
As an example, Gingrich, the Congressman from Georgia, was voluble about his belief that Reagan’s strategy of bankrupting the USSR with massive defense spending would never work. He was wrong. In fact, the Soviet Union turned out to be a huge Potemkin village, and when Reagan called their bluff, they collapsed. So Newt was mistaken. And?
That was a relatively minor disagreement, whereas the two men were in total accord on the far more vital issue of the size, power and expense of government. Both believed passionately that, as Ronald Reagan put it, “…government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” That was Gingrich’s position then, and it’s his position now. That’s not a stubborn unwillingness to change, it’s a recognition of universal truth.
As a social, as well as economic, conservative, I have an affinity for Rick Santorum, who’s never backed off one inch from his moral stance, which is the correct one. But the upcoming election is about the economy and jobs, and no one is more qualified to challenge Big Government advocate Barack Obama in that arena than Newt Gingrich.. As the redoubtable and erudite economist Thomas Sowell has observed, Gingrich would tear Mr. Obama to pieces in a head-to-head debate. In fact, Gingrich has challenged the President to a trio of three-hour debates. I seriously doubt the President is sufficiently self-destructive to take him up on it.
The “ethics cloud” under which Gingrich resigned from Congress was trivial by comparison to the overt corruption that exists in that august body today. Only one of a number of alleged violations was sustained by bipartisan investigators – that Gingrich improperly accepted payment for teaching a college course which was politically tendentious. Wow! Some scandal!
Newt Gingrich is not Ronald Reagan, nor does he pretend to be, But as an advocate of the economic policies that made the Reagan administration so hugely successful, he’s the closest we’ve got. Reagan’s son Michael has endorsed him. In abandoning his Presidential bid, Rick Perry threw his support to Gingrich too.
In his State of the Union address, which was little more than a campaign speech, President Obama proposed a suicidal doubling of the 15% Capital Gains tax rate. If there’s a more effective way to stifle investment and discourage the expansion of business, I’d like to know what it is. Furthermore, Mr. Obama proposed an even greater expansion of government size and power by announcing a new bureaucracy, headed by Attorney General Eric Holder, no less (try to hold your laughter to a minimum) to investigate “corrupt” campaign contributions. This from a man whose war chest is over a billion dollars, thanks in large part to contributions from Wall Street. What do you suppose those contributors are hoping for in return? Solyndra was chump change.
This is an election about two radically opposed concepts of government. One says the White House knows best and will make dictatorial end runs around Congress to achieve its goal of turning the United States into a Socialist state on the disastrous European model. The other maintains that government should be as small, inexpensive and unobtrusive as possible, so that individual liberty and economic opportunity are maximized. This ought to be a simple choice. But alas, three generations of public school students who were subjected to liberal indoctrination make the outcome dicey.
Again, Newt Gingrich isn’t Ronald Reagan. But he may be our last, best hope to avoid the disaster Barack Obama is so enthusiastically courting.
Advertisement
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
This entry was posted on January 26, 2012 at 6:25 pm and is filed under Conservative Political Commentary. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments.
Tags: Gingrich no Reagan, Newt Gingrich vs. Reagan, Newt's poll suirge
You can
comment below, or
link to this permanent URL from your own site.
Newt’s Right to be Wrong
(The views and convictions of intelligent people evolve over time – Gingrich is different?)
I’m a conservative Republican. That comes as a big shock to you, I know. What you might find more surprising is that I voted for George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in ‘76 and ‘80, and Walter Mondale in 1984. The first Republican I voted for was George H.W Bush in ‘88. Let’s say my political views have changed. I like to think they’ve become more enlightened, and I believe history bears me out. My point is that people whose beliefs remain static, ignoring reality, are ideological dinosaurs. They cling desperately to concepts and visions of Utopia that simply don’t work in the real world. I think it unnecessary to specify who those people are today.
Newt Gingrich, who’s surging in the polls and stands a better than even chance of winning the Florida GOP primary on January 31st, is being raked over the coals because he identifies himself as a Reagan Republican, when ancient history shows he opposed the 40th President on some key issues. So what? A lot of people, including Republicans, did the same.
As an example, Gingrich, the Congressman from Georgia, was voluble about his belief that Reagan’s strategy of bankrupting the USSR with massive defense spending would never work. He was wrong. In fact, the Soviet Union turned out to be a huge Potemkin village, and when Reagan called their bluff, they collapsed. So Newt was mistaken. And?
That was a relatively minor disagreement, whereas the two men were in total accord on the far more vital issue of the size, power and expense of government. Both believed passionately that, as Ronald Reagan put it, “…government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” That was Gingrich’s position then, and it’s his position now. That’s not a stubborn unwillingness to change, it’s a recognition of universal truth.
As a social, as well as economic, conservative, I have an affinity for Rick Santorum, who’s never backed off one inch from his moral stance, which is the correct one. But the upcoming election is about the economy and jobs, and no one is more qualified to challenge Big Government advocate Barack Obama in that arena than Newt Gingrich.. As the redoubtable and erudite economist Thomas Sowell has observed, Gingrich would tear Mr. Obama to pieces in a head-to-head debate. In fact, Gingrich has challenged the President to a trio of three-hour debates. I seriously doubt the President is sufficiently self-destructive to take him up on it.
The “ethics cloud” under which Gingrich resigned from Congress was trivial by comparison to the overt corruption that exists in that august body today. Only one of a number of alleged violations was sustained by bipartisan investigators – that Gingrich improperly accepted payment for teaching a college course which was politically tendentious. Wow! Some scandal!
Newt Gingrich is not Ronald Reagan, nor does he pretend to be, But as an advocate of the economic policies that made the Reagan administration so hugely successful, he’s the closest we’ve got. Reagan’s son Michael has endorsed him. In abandoning his Presidential bid, Rick Perry threw his support to Gingrich too.
In his State of the Union address, which was little more than a campaign speech, President Obama proposed a suicidal doubling of the 15% Capital Gains tax rate. If there’s a more effective way to stifle investment and discourage the expansion of business, I’d like to know what it is. Furthermore, Mr. Obama proposed an even greater expansion of government size and power by announcing a new bureaucracy, headed by Attorney General Eric Holder, no less (try to hold your laughter to a minimum) to investigate “corrupt” campaign contributions. This from a man whose war chest is over a billion dollars, thanks in large part to contributions from Wall Street. What do you suppose those contributors are hoping for in return? Solyndra was chump change.
This is an election about two radically opposed concepts of government. One says the White House knows best and will make dictatorial end runs around Congress to achieve its goal of turning the United States into a Socialist state on the disastrous European model. The other maintains that government should be as small, inexpensive and unobtrusive as possible, so that individual liberty and economic opportunity are maximized. This ought to be a simple choice. But alas, three generations of public school students who were subjected to liberal indoctrination make the outcome dicey.
Again, Newt Gingrich isn’t Ronald Reagan. But he may be our last, best hope to avoid the disaster Barack Obama is so enthusiastically courting.
Share this:
Like this:
This entry was posted on January 26, 2012 at 6:25 pm and is filed under Conservative Political Commentary. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments.
Tags: Gingrich no Reagan, Newt Gingrich vs. Reagan, Newt's poll suirge
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.