Fate Of A Nation, And The West, Might Hinge On Super Tuesday
Many people are looking to the many primary elections on March 6 — "Super Tuesday" — to clarify where this year's Republican nomination campaign is headed. It may clarify far more than that, including the future of this nation and of Western civilization.
If a clear winner with a commanding lead emerges, the question then becomes whether that candidate is someone who is likely to defeat Barack Obama. If not, then the fate of America — and of Western nations, including Israel — will be left in the hands of a man with a lifelong hostility to Western values and Western interests.
President Obama is such a genial man that many people, across the ideological space, cannot see him as a danger. For every hundred people who can see his geniality, probably only a handful see the grave danger his warped policies and ruthless tactics pose to a whole way of life that has given generation after generation of Americans unprecedented freedom and prosperity.
The election next November will not be just another election, and the stakes add up to far more than the sum of the individual issues.
Moreover, if re-elected and facing no future election, whatever political constraints may have limited how far Obama would push his radical agenda will be gone.
He would have the closest thing to a blank check. Nothing could stop him but impeachment or a military coup, and both are very unlikely. A genial corrupter is all the more dangerous for being genial.
The four remaining Republican candidates have to be judged not simply by whether they would make good presidents, but by how well they can cut through Obama's personal popularity and glib rhetoric to alert the voters as to the stakes in this year's election.
Ron Paul? Even those of us who agree with much of his domestic agenda, including getting rid of the Federal Reserve System, cannot believe that his happy-go-lucky attitude toward Iran's getting a nuclear weapon represents anything other than a grave danger to the whole Western World.
Rick Santorum has possibilities, but can he survive the media's constant attempts to paint him as some kind of religious nut who would use the government to impose his views on others? And, if he can, will he also be able to go toe-to-toe with Obama in debates?
I would not bet the rent money on it. And what is at stake is far bigger than the rent money.
Mitt Romney is the kind of candidate that the Republican establishment has always looked for, a moderate who can appeal to independents. It doesn't matter how many such candidates have turned out to be disasters on election night, going all the way back to Thomas E. Dewey in 1948.
Choice Is Gingrich
Nor does it matter that the Republicans' most successful candidate of the 20th century — Ronald Reagan, with two consecutive landslide victories at the polls — was nobody's idea of a mushy moderate. He stood for something. And he could explain what he stood for. These may sound like modest achievements, but they are very rare, especially among Republicans.
Newt Gingrich is the only candidate still in the field who can clearly take on Barack Obama in one-on-one debate and cut through the Obama rhetoric and mystique with hard facts and plain logic.
Nor is this just a matter of having a gift of gab. Gingrich has a far deeper grasp of both the policies and the politics than the other Republican candidates.
Does Gingrich have political "baggage"? More than you could carry on a commercial airliner. Charges of opportunism have been among the most serious raised against the former Speaker of the House. But being president of the United States is the opportunity of a lifetime. If that doesn't sober a man up, it is hard to imagine what would.
Does any of the Republican candidates seem ideal? No. But the White House cannot be left vacant, while we hope for a better field of candidates in 2016.
We have to make our choice among the alternatives actually available, of which Obama is by far the worst.
|Born||June 30, 1930
Gastonia, North Carolina
|Institution||Hoover Institution (1980–present)
UCLA (1970–1972, 1974–1980)
Urban Institute (1972–1974)
Brandeis University (1969–1970)
Cornell University (1965–1969)
|Field||Economics, Education, Politics, History, Race relations, Child development|
|Influences||Milton Friedman, George Stigler, F. A. Hayek|
|Influenced||Clarence Thomas, Milton Friedman, Steven Pinker|
|Awards||Military Service: United States Marine Corps, Corporal, Francis Boyer Award, National Humanities Medal, Bradley Prize, getAbstract International Book Award|
Sowell was born in North Carolina, but grew up in Harlem, New York. He dropped out of high school, and served in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. He received a bachelor's degree from Harvard University in 1958 and a master's degree from Columbia University in 1959. In 1968, he earned his doctorate degree in economics from the University of Chicago.
Sowell has served on the faculties of several universities, including Cornell and University of California, Los Angeles, and worked for think tanks such as the Urban Institute. Since 1980 he has worked at the Hoover Institution. He is the author of more than 30 books.
…When Twitter just isn't enough
December 20, 2011
“Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich’s past, rather than on the nation’s future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: ‘If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.’ If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means we’ve lost, big time.” - Thomas SowellThe Introduction
There’s more to picking a Presidential candidate than just conservative platitudes. A President must be a statesman. And to have become President, one has to have earned their credentials. A credential is a specific qualification or achievement that shows you are qualified. A record of achievements. Unique attributes. Evidence or testimonial which bearer’s competence. In picking a President, my candidate has to have an orderly worldview, clarity of vision, proven credentials, and ability to lead and motivate the majority with conviction.
And, when the brilliant Thomas Sowell endorses Newt Gingrich, I sit up.
Gingrich ran the House as Speaker from 1995 to 1999 and was Minority Whip from 1989 to 1995. His accomplishments in government dwarf anything his rivals have managed to achieve nationally. When Newt became Speaker in 1995 congressional approval was about 20%. When he left the Speakership four years later, it was about 60%. Now it’s 11%. When Newt left the Speakership, the national debt was about $3 trillion. Now, its $15 trillion. When Newt left the Speakership, unemployment was 4.2%. Now, its roughly 9.0% for three years standing.
The crowd who are excoriating Gingrich are the exact same misfits that helped add $12 trillion to the debt, driven-down congressional approval to 11% and increased unemployment by a staggering 5%. Why do I care what the hell these people have to say? Who are they to deride Gingrich’s lack of leadership when they have showed none themselves? They’ve shunned conservative policy for over a decade, and favored Beltway influence-peddling at the expense of the people long after Gingrich exited. Gingrich’s agenda is a serious threat to the central planning mentality that permeates the ruling elite inside the beltway.
As a congressman, Gingrich was a Reagan Coalition member and Reagan Revolution fighter. As Speaker, he led the Republicans to their first House majority in over 40 years and the GOP finally broke the New Deal coalition that had dominated American politics for more than a half-century, moving policy substantially to the right for our nation. We all benefited as a result. This Reagan, Gingrich, Republican majority-aligned coalition also directly led to the eventual downfall of the Soviet Union.
As Speaker, he allied himself with Ronald Reagan to build the Reagan Coalition, the Religious Right and led his new Republican majority (the Republican Revolution) to pass the Contract with America, cut the deficit, cut taxes, reformed welfare, blocked Clinton’s agenda including HillaryCare, balanced the budget four years running, and extended the great, long-standing Reagan economy throughout the nineties. By comparison, Romney, a one-term MA Governor, vehemently denied Reagan; aligned himself with Ted Kennedy; and lost the most legislative seats for Republicans in MA since the Civil War.
Gingrich’s pro-life voting record is sterling at 98.6%, 70 out of 71 votes, and twice helped pass the end of partial-birth abortion in Congress, before Clinton vetoed it; a true encouragement for anyone who cares about babies being protected in the womb. His lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union rings in at 90%. And the National Taxpayers Union’s Annual Scorecard on reduced spending and taxes gave Gingrich an “A”, for his last four years in office, ranking him #1, #4, #2 and #11 and as one of the most conservative members in Congress for the Republican party.
Of all candidates, Gingrich’s record “stands alone” in his policy achievements and successful leadership portfolio. During his Speakership, a blistering 11 million jobs were created (nearly 3 million per year), $400 billion in debt was paid off, 60% of welfare rolls were reduced, and taxes were cut for the first time in sixteen years – including the largest capital gains tax in history. That’s an immovable fact. Taken together, as a Reagan conservative, Gingrich has already proven his high office credentials as U.S. House speaker.
Gingrich’s 21st Century nine-point “Jobs and Prosperity Plan” borrows a page from Reagan’s 1980 economic platform. It is not just Reaganesque, it is Reaganomics, cryogenically frozen in 1981, thawed 30 years later, and pumped full of Newt-style steroids in order to save the American people from our nations slow systemic job growth. The pro-growth, pro-job, economic recovery plan features massive tax cuts, less government spending (through privatization of entitlement programs), interest-rate hikes, and rampant deregulation.
Gingrich, who blames excessive regulation for the 2008 financial crisis, also wants to advance Reaganomics by repealing the Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley laws governing the financial sector. He would reorient the Federal Reserve entirely toward taming inflation, axing the pursuit of full employment from its congressional mandate. He would cut spending by fundamentally restructuring safety-net programs, turning Medicaid into block grants to states and allowing Americans to opt into privatized accounts for Medicare and Social Security, eventually phasing out payroll taxes in the process.
The foundation is classic supply-side, trickle-down, Laffer-curve economics, which Gingrich’s economic advisers predict will unleash a Reagan-like boom that will eventually generate enough tax revenue to balance the federal budget. Gingrich calls for a Balanced Budget Amendment; and would move to zero-based budgeting, where every dollar must be justified domestically and in foreign aid; and his plan outlines how he’ll cut government waste, inefficiency and duplication all across the board. Notably, anyone planning to introduce ‘Lean Six Sigma’ into government is serious about slicing the bureaucracy.
Finally, no other candidate has listed a Day One Plan. As part of his 21st Century Contract with America, Gingrich has pledged to issue a series of Executive Orders to create jobs and help undo the damage of the Obama administration on the first day of his administration. Altogether, one could reasonably expect a President Gingrich to lead America in a pro-growth, limited government direction who understands the significance of the founding principle that we were created equal by our Creator (God) and endowed with certain unalienable rights.
Gingrich has a keen understanding of our nation’s history, including its founding. No candidate in the race can match Gingrich’s career advocating and achieving conservative reforms in government. And, no candidate has led a national movement in electing a Republican majority. Credentials matter. Our nation is in crisis. And Gingrich, a transformational leader, is uniquely prepared to turn over the rotten apples cart. As Rev Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Wesley in San Diego elegantly notes,
Been vetted. Gingrich has his definite weaknesses, but so did Reagan. Based on what we know, he has walked through the biblical steps of forgiveness. Gingrich’s ‘baggage’ is well known – both positively and negatively; marital history; Pelosi couch; Heritage mandate to sword-off HillaryCare; and we all know it is relevant. Voters will have to weigh these against his good virtues. But, as Thomas Sowell warns: “voters should recognize Gingrich’s “concrete accomplishments” over his ‘personal life’ baggage.”
Intellectual depth and breadth. Even his critics stand in awe of his capabilities. No other candidate is as intellectually sound. His breadth and depth of knowledge of history and politics markedly transcends his opponents. His knowledge has brought wisdom. We need wisdom. His keen intellect is a gift from God.
Historical understanding. A knowledge of history makes one wise. His grasp of history and the constitution gives him an enormous advantage in understanding the solutions to today’s problems. “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” If Gingrich can supplement his intellectual gravitas with a deliberate, solid moral compass — his presidency could spark a rebirth of the principles of American liberty.
Achieved “elder statesman” status. Statesmanship conveys a quality of leadership that inspires – bringing people together. A nation so traumatized by weak leadership, how can anyone dispute the mans knowledge of the issues, history of the issues from an American historical context, and his 21st
Knowledge of Washington, DC. We need someone who cannot be “bullied” by the system but rather someone who will ‘bully’ the system. Washington, DC is brutal. And Gingrich is a hard-charging warrior. An outsider, Gingrich understands Washington and should be measured by the list of enemies he’s made among the establishment. What good is having a solid, constitutional, pro-life, pro-marriage, Christian president in the White House, if one is unable to move legislation and dismantle bureaucracies. He has the credentials to navigate Washington DC.
Communication skills. Reagan did not speak to the core of conservatives. Reagan spoke his conservative principles to the core of America as a whole. Reagan had a gift for optimism. He always spoke of the future. Reagan communicated wide-reaching ideology and complex policies in terms ordinary people could understand. No one has the capacity to think through issues and articulate them better than Gingrich. I would rather have a leader who is vast with ideas, than the total lack of solutions that we’ve experienced from our leaders in both parties for years.
A yearning for American Exceptionalism. There are nearly 200 nations with constitutions. Only one nation has sacred documents that specifically state that our rights are given by our ‘Creator’ to “We The People”. We need a compelling leader who can march us back to greatness. Americans have long embraced a notion of superiority; the “shining city upon a hill” that Ronald Reagan described. Our American values and our history are unique and worthy of universal admiration. Gingrich is able to articulate ‘the psychology of optimism’ considerably better than any elected official I have seen since Reagan.
An understanding of moral differences. It is no longer a case of “right vs. left” but “right vs. wrong.” Marriage does not seek a new definition. Tearing up a baby in the womb is not “left.” It is wrong. Stealing funds from future generations and spending it is not “left.” Its wrong. The 9th Circuit Court’s removal of “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance is not merely “left.’ It is wrong. Gingrich understands the moral component and the perils of our rapidly disappearing freedom and he grasps the threat posed by loss of religious liberty.
An understanding of war. America is in a moral and economic war. A war that will determine whether America, as she was conceived, survives free expression of the will of the people, or ideas imposed on the nation from an elite. In war, one needs a sophisticated warrior, one who understands the nature of fighting and winning – and losing. Gingrich is that warrior. He is a warrior made for this war. Failure to grasp this one key issue could cost us our future.
Churchillian fortitude. We face serious dual enemies: the radical left secularist and radical Islam, both with the capability of destroying our historic America. The left has almost succeeded. Gingrich is right by seeing the dual dangers. Few seem to grasp it. But he does. We need a president who will not waver. Churchill was flawed, as are all people. But Churchill was needed by Britain, just as America now needs Gingrich’s leadership. We must have a Winston Churchill.
Most Electable Conservative. Most Liberals will hate him, but the Tea Party and taxpayers won’t; the lovers of liberty, guardians of life and defenders of national security will support him. As the non-Romney conservative candidates fall-off and consolidate, Newt’s numbers will rise. Gingrich has appeal in the GE because he stands for ideas and results at a time when both parties have failed. He is the only candidate who can both beat Romney and Obama — and who has a proven track record as a conservative. Reagan proved it beyond any doubt; given a leader who can espouse conservative principles clearly and unapologetically, those “independents” will flock to him. Romney would suppress conservative and evangelical turnout in GE.
There should be no objection to the cataloguing of any candidate’s failings, and Newt has certainly made his share of mistakes, just as Reagan did, but they are far outweighed by his unique gifts. Gingrich has taken positions and done things in his personal life I don’t agree with, but to his credit he has been transparent, has shown humility, and a willingness to continue to be transparent. I trust a man who has made mistakes, and publicly expressed his regret for them, more than I trust a man, who conceals his past. Obama concealed his past in 2008. We see the same in Mitt Romney in 2012.
The GOP Establishment does not like conservatives. The Republican establishment and the Beltway elite ruling class hates Gingrich. This “hate Newt” strategy is eerily similar to the ‘hate Reagan’ strategy. They didn’t like Ronald Reagan either. He was classified as ‘radical’ ‘unfit’ ‘unqualified’ ‘not electable’ – most of the opposition coming from his own party who were threatened by his conservative flank. In gaining national appeal, Reagan stood above the dishonest criticism and carried on. Reagan was the insurgent candidate in 1980, and Gingrich should be the insurgent candidate in 2012.
Establishment Republicans, who benefit from business-as-usual in Washington, fear a great ideas-based crusade that builds a national citizens movement behind reducing the scope and intrusiveness of the government. They’re worried about losing influence, power and privilege. While party-elite insiders claim Gingrich is “of the establishment” and “hated by the establishment,” those same insiders know he is capable of having a closer relationship with the American citizen than the present party members. Newt, by his nature, will not toe the Establishment line.
Many don’t know that a large reason Gingrich is despised by the Republican Establishment is because, when he was speaker, he appointed people to leadership positions that he felt were the best candidates to help accomplish his goals – going over the heads of the Establishment Republicans who felt that it was “their turn”. He also ignored the ‘entrenched old-timers’ advice to “go it slow” and went full throttle. Did he get things done? Yes. Did he ruffle lots and lots of feathers in the process? Yes. Gingrich does not toe the party line.
The 2012 battlefield is not against Obama. His record is indefensible. Struggling families don’t need reminding how they feel. The war will be won or lost against the biased left-leaning media, which prop Obama up. That is where the war will reside. What candidate understands that the media is not their friend? As Romney opines he’ll work well with ‘good Democrats,’ Gingrich challenges the premise of the questions that the biased media asks. Just as Reagan knew the enemy was the media so does Gingrich. And Newt, like Reagan before him, does not shrink from the attack.
In an election where the imperative is to repeal Obamacare, Gingrich is the candidate who defeated Hillarycare. In an election where unemployment is 9%, Newts credentials are 4.2%. In an election where spending needs to be reined-in, Gingrich is the candidate who last balanced the budget. By his past accomplishments, he understands these issues better than any other candidate. Gingrich led the friendly forces to victory and he was the target of the enemy forces to defeat. None of that is even in dispute.
For too long, as a center-right nation, we have allowed the voice of our frustration go unchallenged as some judicial court just removed the nativity scene from the courthouse lawn. Not Gingrich. Laying out the constitutional and philosophic wrongness of the underpinnings of that removal, Gingrich “cuts off the enemy at the knees.” And yet some, when the warrior comes to our defense, condemn the protector. Part of Reagan’s pledge to get government off the backs of the people included returning the courts to what he deemed their proper and limited constitutional roles, as Gingrich has: “Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution.”
For the reasons set forth, only someone trying to distort a persons record for political expediency could argue Gingrich is not a conservative. To call Newt a “Progressive” or “frugal socialist” when his actual record of national accomplishments utterly dwarfs other candidates in the race – strikes me as beyond absurd. I gladly dissent from those who can’t debate the merits of a man in the context of historical accuracy. The obsession with personal past deeds and purity is to distract the discussion from present day crisis that America now faces.
The next President will fill 3 or 4 vacancies on the Supreme Court; repeal Obamacare; balance the budget; cut the size and scope of government; and tackle tax-code, border security and entitlement reforms. Gingrich is a bona-fide change agent who said he wants to slenderize government “fundamentally,” “historically” and “categorically.” He knows his path to greatness is to dismantle the nanny state socialism that has permeated Washington and return our nation to “Americanism” “Exceptionalism” and true “Capitalism.” The country is looking for a bold leader.
This is not just another election. This is it. The stakes are high. Credentials matter.
Gingrich’s overall record shows he has done more to advance the cause of conservatism across our nation than any of his opponents. He recognizes the threats to America from without and within, and is unafraid to tell the truth. Gingrich is stern, intelligent, and experienced with the fortitude we need as the next leader of this country. The GOP establishment is scared of Gingrich just as they wanted no part of Ronald Reagan. He is a man who isn’t restrained by Washington convention, but who instead has consistently bucked custom to get things done.
To date, Gingrich is the only American politician who committed to balancing the federal budget and succeeded. I can’t imagine anyone who would bring the intellectual vigor and conservative agenda to the table as Gingrich would. I have absolutely no fear that a President Gingrich will lead the country in a conservative direction starting in 2013. Please read: Electability: Newt Gingrich. Below is one of the most profound speeches I’ve ever listened to. With no teleprompter, his delivery is effortless, with clarity of thought. From Nov 2009:
Newt Gingrich: Solutions
Newt Gingrich: Answers
National Taxpayer Union: Scoring
American Conservative Union: Scoring
Club for Growth: White Paper
Gingrich’s daughter: Misinformation
Gingrich’s daughter II: My Father
The Evangelical Case for Newt Gingrich: Article
Social Network & Grassroots Supporters: Get Involved