Oracle of Reason

Faith's empire is the world; its monarch, God; its ministers the priests; its slaves the people

Tag: Newt Gingrich

May 1, 2012

The Beginning of the End for Newt?

After losing miserably in 5 state primary contests last week Newt Gingrich is going to suspend his Presidential campaign tomorrow. This is very unfortunate but not altogether surprising since Newt’s bad debate performance in Florida back in January must have damaged his campaign and image more than I thought. I believe Newt had gotten advice to go from the populist-sounding, anti-establishment conservative that took him over the top in South Carolina to a more Presidential-acting candidate when he campaigned in the Sunshine State. As a result of the change of pitch as well as not performing well in the televised debate for the Florida Republican primary it cost him badly.

Newt made it up somewhat when he participated in the Arizona debate and (fortunately) won in his home state of Georgia but, sadly, the damage was done. With Gingrich bowing out this all but seals the nomination for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, respectfully. Representative Ron Paul is in denial about the whole affair and still naively holds on to hope that he will win the nomination or have some sort of impact in the race. With Paul’s Blame America First stance on foreign policy, his refusal to prohibit Iran from acquiring nuclear technology if elected President, his surrounding himself with anti-semites and white nationalists, as well as Paul’s attack ads against Gingrich and Santorum while (up until recently) remaining silent on criticizing Mitt Romney nixes any chance of him becoming the GOP nominee. My concern is that the Republican Party could end up with a repeat of the 2008 John McCain Presidential campaign disaster.

Mitt Romney’s business experience is notable but as a former elected official he does not have record to run on and lacks any substance to take President Obama to task. His primary victory could very well be a Pyrrhic one since he did campaign on capitalism and free markets but chose not to defend such institutions when Romney headed the Bay State’s government. While Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney openly supported gun control and enacted new gun legislation, raised state taxes and fees by three quarters of a million dollars, up until recently supported indexing the minimum wage to inflation, enacted cap and trade legislation, and even urged the Obama Administration to enact an individual mandate as part of the Democrat’s 2009 health care law.

The only comfort I can take from Newt’s bowing out is that the direction is clear and it looks like Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican Party nominee. It is my hope that with the vetting Romney has gone through that he will more accommodating to the GOP’s Tea Party wing. His reversal on the minimum wage issue might be evidence of his willingness to do so. Unfortunately, Mitt Romney leaves nothing for someone like me to cheer for. At best, my vote for him will not be for Romney or his policies but a vote against Obama. Mitt Romney comes across as a lackluster candidate that is superficial, all talk and no substance. If Romney wins the Republican nomination (which I think is likely) when it comes time to cast my vote for President. However, this is the election of a lifetime and is too important to throw away or ignore. If Barack Obama gets another four years the results could be disastrous which is why it is important that a Republican replace the President.

I will not vote for the Libertarian Party candidate since third parties are a waste of time and voting for them can do great damage in political races. Third parties siphon votes away from a major party candidates that you can utilize to knock out an incumbent who has so many liabilities and deserves to be kicked out of office in which such is the case with Obama. Not only is vote fraud one of the ways Democrats obtain and maintain power but they also back including Libertarians in elections since LP candidates tend to tilt elections against Republicans.

On the local level I do plan to be a little more involved with the Tea Party and I think if libertarians are to have any impact in the GOP it is best done with this group. I have been to Tea Party meetings and am very impressed with their efforts. Most of the Precinct Committeemen in Maricopa County are Tea Party activists and they have been extremely effective in electing party officers as well as influencing the debate inside the Republican Party including what issues are addressed. If Romney is to be the nominee and President then let him campaign like a centrist. The obvious answer is to give Republicans the majority in Congress for 2012 which odds favor that happening come November. With a GOP House and Senate hopefully it will prod Romney to stay consistent with his pro-free enterprise message and reject any pragmatic moves on his part.

Is this the end of Newt Gingrich overall? Not in the least. I was surprised that he resurfaced on the public scene with his book Winning the Future as well as Newt’s other activities that I learned about including the events surrounding his stepping down as Speaker during the campaign. I think it is notable that Newt said he would support Mitt Romney if he won the nomination and Gingrich should be lauded for following through. However, as far as my support for Romney is concerned, he gets my vote and that is all. The rise and prominence of the Tea Party the Republican base has shifted sharply in the direction of a small government, pro-free market and anti-welfare-state direction. We will see how much of an effect this has on the GOP, it’s nominee and both candidates come the general election. Hopefully it is and will remain significant.

Leave a comment
March 21, 2012

Rick Santorum: Enemy of Liberty

Despite their riding the waive of unpopularity of the Obama Administration’s economic policies I thought Congressional Republicans forgot the reason why they were put in near control of the U.S. Congress to begin with. In the shadow of the Supreme Court on the verge of taking up the Democrats’ healthcare law, Republicans on the Hill will be taking up repealing all or parts of the Affordable Care Act. While I do not like the timing on this as I would have preferred them taking up the health care issue earlier, however, since the Supreme Court case puts the issue freshly in people’s minds putting off addressing Obamacare until now might help slingshot the issue to the forefront in the Presidential race.

In 2010 it looked as if the Republicans had learned the lessons they from their 1994 Revolution flopping and had grown some backbone. It seemed that the champions of limited government and individual freedom were finally the victors in November. No such luck and with the Republican Presidential nomination race GOP voters feel that not only are all four of the candidates boring and uninspiring but also mealy-mouthed, has-been compromisers who are used to making empty promises and will deliver again once elected.

Former Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is the second place holder in terms of votes and delegates, demonstrates the kind of candidate the Republican Party should not nominate and is an example of what I mean. He has received considerable attention due to the string of Primary wins he has obtained in the Southern U.S. but also his near victory against Mitt Romney in his home state of Michigan. Party social conservatives are quite happy with Santorum’s record in Congress as well as his focus on issues of importance to them such as banning gay marriage, abortion, and (more recently) pornography.

Since (as Ayn Rand points out) capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights, Santorum is, at best, an enemy of liberty because of what he stands for. At first glance he seems to embrace a decent amount of economic freedom. His economic plan calls for enacting more free trade agreements, a host of tax cuts, and entitlement reforms but what I find troubling is his reasoning behind taking such stances.

One section of Santorum’s website states: Senator Santorum believes that at its core, America is a moral enterprise, but that foundation is quickly eroding. As President, Rick Santorum commits to rebuild that foundation and lead the way on restoring traditional American values. It is underneath the section of the website I found this quote that he lists specific proposals grounded in typical social conservatism. Essentially, Rick Santorum wants to maintain the strength and power of the nation in which free enterprise is the means of achieving the ends of a strong economy which will mean a strong people obtained for the common good ultimately through faith.

As a result of his outlook Santorum holds little regard for individual rights and has openly reeled against personal choice on a number of issues. Like any conservative Rick Santorum is anti-abortion and has made some of the most outlandish accusations and comments. For example, in 2003, Santorum compared homosexuals to pedophiles, just recently he compared the dissemination of contraception with promoting sexual promiscuity, and also reeled against the freedom of the internet calling for its regulation.

New York Times columnist David Brooks put the right definition of Santorum’s philosophy in an opinion piece published January of this year. Brooks stated:

Communities breed character. Santorum argues that government cannot be agnostic about the character of its citizens because the less disciplined the people are, the more government must step in to provide order.

The only time it is proper for government to step in to provide order is when government identifies and is called upon to halt threats to the rights of the innocent such as in cases of when criminals burglarize homes, rape innocent women, rob people for money at gun point, or if someone is in the process or on the verge of conducting an act of terrorism. It is not government’s role to play the role of parent in terms of the realm of peaceful, personal, individual choice.

In a 2008 interview, Santorum is quoted as saying:

There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

If Santorum understood the nature of rights he would know that rights are an extension of individualism. It took hundreds of years of development in philosophy and law in order for Western societies to have the civilization we have today. Such notions enabled the overthrow of monarchs which rendered much of the decision making on the part of monarchs and nation-states to the governed. The Declaration of Independence is the best expression of such sentiments and established the foundation of the guiding philosophy of the United States which is one based on individual rights.

Since Senator Santorum is against the idea of individualism, any semblance of freedom in conservative thought as well as in the Republican Party, and the influence of the Tea Party it makes sense that he takes the policy stances he does. He may embrace certain issues related to liberty but only because they are viewed by him as a means to an end for the society he envisions.

I suppose the most refreshing thing about the Republican contest for President is that Rick Santorum is still behind Romney in terms of delegate count and Primary Election wins. The disappointing aspect of the race is that Mitt Romney is the victor and his outlook is just as anti-freedom as Santorum. Santorum can still have an impact as being the second highest vote getter but the more I watch Santorum’s campaign the more it reminds me of Pat Buchanan’s 1992 campaign against President George H.W. Bush. If so that means any influence Santorum has in the GOP will quickly disappear because of his losses and, hopefully, spells a potential comeback for Newt Gingrich.

Leave a comment
March 14, 2012

Santorum’s one-two punch

The final results are in and congratulations to Rick Santorum for winning the Republican primaries in Mississippi and Alabama. Despite this setback, Newt Gingrich has pledged to press on and, in a way, I think he should. As a result of these wins, Rick Santorum can no longer claim that Gingrich siphons votes away from him and Newt’s persistence helps to define him as opposed to Romney and Santorum.

Both Romney and Santorum offer too many things in their past for Obama to pick from to use against them. Rick Santorum because of his cultural conservatism, support of ear marks, as well as his endorsing Arlen Specter for re-election in 2006. Mitt Romney for his support of higher taxes, stricter gun control laws, cap and trade legislation for Massachusetts, and Massachusetts health care law (a.k.a. Romneycare) that President Obama and Congressional Democrats admitted they modeled their health care law that Romney himself urged Democrats to pass then later lied denying that he did.

In addition to being the most intelligent, Newt Gingrich is the candidate with the least amount of baggage out of all of his Republican rivals and has shown himself to be a consistent, forceful spokesman and effective debater. So much so that his statements have also gotten under the skin of President Obama. He recently made the President react defensively as exampled by Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu backing off his initial statement that he wanted gas prices to go higher. The fact that Newt Gingrich came in second in both primaries demonstrates he still has appeal and the fact that both Newt and Santorum were the top two vote getters Tuesday demonstrates the conservative base of the party does not want Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee but are split on the kind of conservative they want. Santorum is an outspoken social conservative while Gingirch is drawing support GOP economic conservatives, foreign policy hawks and libertarians.

In addition to the fact that he has raised more money, has more delegates, and has more endorsements than Santorum, the best and only reason that Newt should stay in is that he is far and away a much better qualified candidate than his rivals. Hopefully, his pick up of delegates as he continues his campaign will be enough for Gingrich to clinch the nomination, force either Romney or Santorum to make concessions to Newt if Satorum or Romney urge him to pull out or result in an open/brokered Republican convention in June.

It will continue to be a long road for the Republican nomination but, ultimately, I think the fire each of the candidates experiences on the campaign trail will make them better Chief Executives down the road. None the less, neither of the top three candidates has a clear path to the nomination and that is ample reason for Gingrich to remain.

Leave a comment
March 7, 2012

Newt Gingrich is our best chance

In Eastern and Western philosophy there are two forces usually at work against one another which (it is assumed) helps bring balance to the world. In Asian philosophy it is the conflict between Yin and Yang. In Chrisitianity the conflict is between the ideas of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo while in secular philosophy the conflict is between the outlook of Aristotle and Plato.

In her book The Future and it’s Enemnies, Virginia Postrel outlines the confict between the dynamists and the stasists. Dynamists embace a world of choice and competition which includes economic prosperity, technological progress and cultural innovation. Stasists, on the other hand, envision a society that upholds the status quo, while embacing the values of a simpler past and authoritarian rule.

The Republican race has boiled down to 4 people. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul fall into the dynamist category while Romney and Santorum are stasists. Gingrich and Paul embrace a positive future of economic progress and spontaneous order where individuals are free to pursue their own course of happiness. Out of the two Paul fails miserably in the realm of foreign policy and the roots of Islamic terror by wrongly blaming U.S. military and clandestine activities in the Middle East as being the cause of events like September 11, 2001. Gingrich has not only (rightly) taken Paul to task for his idiocy but supported and defended free and open markets in his speeches and statements, he has boldly defended Israel, condemned radical Islam along with speaking the truth about Sharia Law. He has been uncompromisingly hawkish asserting the best and only methods to deal with Islamic terrorism and regimes that support it (like Iran) is to use military force against the enemy to ensure our survival.

The fact remains that Western civilization is embroiled in a struggle for it’s very survival against enemies (Islam and the left) openly hostile to secularism and capitalism along with the freedoms open societies embrace. Israel, for example, is surrounded by theocratic dictatorships, and groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah and their leftists allies work diligently to undermine her in the court of public opinion. Their delegitimization campaign is only part of an effort that will result in a second Holocaust of the country’s Jewish population while obliterating the only country in the Middle East that is a prosperous, secular island of sanity which makes Islamist countries look bad. With Israel gone it will give Islamists will have less of a hurdle to convince their followers to join them in their quest to destroy Western infidels since by doing will have a far off faceless enemy to demonize.

It is a mistake to elect candidates who will appease our enemies or embrace semblances of pragmatism or altruism since they will not adequately defend the values that have made America and Western civilization great. Romney and Santorum are both stasists in that they both embrace subjecting the individual to the collective will. Romney demonstrates this in the form of his pragmatism. As Governor of Massachusetts Romney supported tax increases, increased gun restrictions and additional economic controls while Santorum reels against American individualism using his faith as the centerpiece of his campaign. Santorum rationalizes prohibitions on personal individual choice such as supporting restrictions on abortion and opposition to stem cell research and sees capitalism as a means to an end out of altruistic sacrifice.

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul both favor socially conservative policies but these are not the main focus of their campaigns. The fact that Ron Paul will not admit that he signed off on the racist and anti-Semitic newsletters that bare his name and his blame America first mantra in the realm of foreign policy automatically disqualifies him in my mind. I also question the libertarian label he is given. While his stance on the drug war, spending and income tax are notable while serving in Congress on many occasions he sought to remove federal court jurisdiction to hear abortion and gay marriage cases. If Paul is a libertarian he would not seek to remove an individual’s ability to seek redress in federal courts from state-level liberty-violating laws. Newt Gingrich has a worldview much broader than Paul’s. His recent support of states (like Washington) legalizing gay marriage by referendum or via state legislatures rather than by court decision shows he is respects individual liberty even though he may disagree with someone’s personal conduct.

Newt has the backbone, know-how, and wisdom to actually reverse the policies enacted by Barack Obama (another stasist) and adequately debate and take the President to task on the campaign trail. None of the allegations brought against him regarding his former marriages and his activities as Speaker have been able to stick because Gingrich has openly and honestly addressed them. I would have liked to have seen Texas Governor Rick Perry get the G.O.P. nomination, but he did miserably in Republican debates and his campaign fell apart at the seams over time. Fortunately, Perry endorsed Gingrich and I am glad that all of my preconceived notions about Gingrich have been proven unfounded. Two other individuals I like (Sarah Palin and Herman Cain) have endorsed Newt as well which hopefully means the influence of the Tea Party in Republican politics will continue for quite sometime.

I proudly voted for Newt Gingrich during the Arizona Primary on February 28th and urge you to do so in your state’s primary as well. With Super Tuesday over, unfortunately there isn’t a clear front runner. Mitt Romney’s recent wins are the result of a scorched Earth policy of outspending his opponents and negative campaigning. This is not a good strategy for the General Election should he go head-to-head with Obama since the demographics of such a contest radically change making it harder for Romney to adapt.

Each candidate must be measured not just how they will perform in the White House but also how well they will be able to undermine Obama in the debates and at the polls. If given the Republican nomination during the General Election the candidate must also play the role of a Paul Revere to alert voters as to what is at stake should Obama be re-elected. If The Annointed One is given a second term as a Lame Duck President any restraints Obama put on himself before and after the shellacking he took in 2010 will come off as he will reveal himself as the true communist that he is.

Newt Gingrich is an honest, principled, and articulate candidate and is best equipped not only to undo the damage done by Obama if elected but also adequately take the President to task in debates. He has a very good record of accomplishment of balancing budgets while Speaker of the House including party building in Georgia and nationally that the G.O.P. would benefit from along with a breadth of knowledge that would make Thomas Jefferson proud. Newt wants to liberate the country and not necessarily rule it. Gingrich operates along the lines of Ayn Rand’s principles and is a man of action. It will take a dynamist to defeat a stasist at the polls and Gingrich offers the best chance to not only defeat Obama but restore America as a dynamist haven once again.

Leave a comment
January 13, 2012

The Ascendancy of Newt Gingrich

Despite my support for Rick Perry, I think it is impressive that Newt Gingrich is polling very high after sagging in Iowa and New Hampshire. I must admit to have first not liked Gingrich as I attributed the collapse of the 1994 Republican Revolution to him.

However, a good friend of mine knows Science Fiction writer Jerry Pournelle in which Gingirch and Pournelle are friends. Pournelle speaks very highly of Gingrich despite his present strategy to take down Mitt Romney.

I think it is refreshing that Newt Gingrich is doing so well in South Carolina polls despite his past baggage. Gingrich is honest and openly regrets his mistakes. It’s obvious he is not afraid of or running from his past, voters are embracing his apologies and recognize him as a brilliant man. If Rick Perry fails to gain any momentum after South Carolina I might defer to Thomas Sowell’s wisdom.

If Gingrich becomes the conservative stalwart in the race so much the better. I have some concerns on his stance on the the right to bear arms but what is refreshing is that he has been able to do so well. This tells me that he can be both knowledgeable with details while articulating them so people can understand and they, in turn, embrace his ideas. I think Thomas Sowell just might be right after all when he said Newt might be the only Republican in the race that (despite his shortcomings) can actually get things done.

Leave a comment
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 51 other followers