Newt Gingrich Doesn't Get It


Have you heard of Doug Hoffman? He’s a guy in upstate New York who’s running for Congress. He’s running as a Conservative–capital “C”. Not a Republican (and certainly not a Democrat/Socialist). The Democrat is a liberal–but so is the Republican, so much so that she has amazingly garnered the endorsement of ACORN. Mull that over for a minute…ACORN.

Guess who else has endorsed the Republican? Newt Gingrich. Yes, that Newt Gingrich (could there be another?). One of the greatest conservative minds of our time–and yet he’s supporting the liberal Republican, and he was on FoxNews yesterday defending his decision; suffice it to say that it was not one of his finest moments, and in my humble opinion, it serves to reinforce this point: he just doesn’t get it.

Because you see, as long as we vote for the lesser of two evils, we’ll get an evil. As long as we swallow the Republicans’ line that “the Democrats are liberal”–not recognizing that a significant percentage of Republicans are themselves big-government progressives, just slightly-less so than their Democrat compatriots–then we’ll keep getting what we’ve been getting all along.

Isn’t the definition of insanity to continue doing the same thing and expecting different results? Put another way, had enough?


  1. Don on October 26, 2009 at 11:52 am

    Yes! I’ve had enough, but not enough to embrace open boarders, abortion and legalizing marijuana.

    • Byron on October 26, 2009 at 3:19 pm

      Taking those one at a time, a consistent libertarian would very likely favor the repeal of Roe v. Wade on the grounds that it is bad constitutional law–this, of course, would throw the issue to the states. Additionally, there is a contingent of libs who are pro-life; they have their own organization. Finally, neither pro-life nor pro-choice flow inherently from a libertarian stance, and thus there is room for persuasion.

      I’m not sure what the official stance on open borders is; if it is as you suggest, that would be an issue on which I’d of course differ from Libs.

      The legalization of marijuana would solve a host of problems that we have today; though I understand we disagree, it seems abundantly clear to me that this is the only position that makes sense.

  2. Don on October 26, 2009 at 8:50 pm

    You know, Byron, I was with you all the way right up until the shameless Libertarian Party commercial. Here are the stated positions straight from their website that I have trouble with.

    From the Libertarian Party Platform page: “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” Killing is killing. This is not a position I can in good conscience support.

    Also from the Libertarian Party website: “When large numbers of otherwise decent people routinely violate a law, the law itself is probably the problem. To argue that illegal immigration is bad merely because it is illegal avoids the threshold question of whether we should prohibit this kind of immigration in the first place.” Rather than secure our boarders the Libertarian Party would have us change the immigration laws to make illegal immigrants legal.

    As for legalizing marijuana, in every society there are some laws that are passed merely because of what it says about us as a people. I believe this is one of them. You may believe that making marijuana legal is the only pragmatic solution to solving the host of problems that we have today. Maybe you’re right. But that doesn’t make the idea any less repulsive. I simply cannot go there because of what it says about me.

    • Byron on October 27, 2009 at 6:13 pm

      @Don: It does seem to me that in taking a position one way or the other as part of the party platform, the (capital “L”) Libertarian Party is taking a position that is not consonant with (small “l”) libertarian philosophy, for the basic support of life and liberty ought to be extended to all human beings–which brings the question back to “what is that thing in there?” That said, even what is said in the platform does not at all constitute an endorsement of Roe, and it does seem to me that there would be likely be a high percentage of Libs who would support overturning Roe, as anyone with any constitutional sense whatsoever must admit that Roe is an unconstitutional usurpation of the 10th Amendment–even if they themselves were pro-choice (they’d then–rightfully–work to get the law of their particular state to their own liking).

      I’m with Fish on the immigration thing.

      As to marijuana, I don’t think making it legal is any different–as I’ve said before–from having television, alcohol or tobacco (all of which, IMHO, do more harm than pot) legal. What does it say about you that those drugs are legal? I think that what allowing all those substances to be legal–nor moral or ethical, mind you, but legal–is that we have a society where adults ought to be free to make choices–and bear the consequences for those choices–even if we don’t like those choices, or believe them to be bad choices, rather than have Momma Government tell us what we can and cannot do to our bodies. Remember: there are all sorts of things that we as believers find morally repugnant that we realize we cannot legitimately or effectively legislate against–and shouldn’t try. I think our only difference is that I see pot as fitting into that category.

  3. Wade on October 27, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    With respect to immigration, the party platform says, “Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.” § 3.4.

    That last sentence seems to contradict Don’s assertion that libertarians are opposed to secure borders.

    If the bad guys are kept out, and the government doesn’t pay to support those who come in (which libertarians would consistently oppose), what’s the problem with immigration?

  4. Don on October 28, 2009 at 8:04 am

    Abortion: Say it any way you like; the Libertarian Party is pro choice.

    Immigration: Okay, so to be clear, on the one hand the Libertarian Party wants to keep out those who are a threat to national security, and not pay to support those who come in, yet on the other hand they want to loosen immigration laws to make immigrants who are currently illegal legal. I guess my problem is that I don’t agree that you can have it both ways.

    Drug laws: On an individual basis I don’t agree that television, alcohol or tobacco do more harm then marijuana. Each of those things that you have suggested can be used in moderation without causing harm. Like everything else it’s the abuse of these things that causes the harm. The same cannot be said for marijuana use. And while you may argue that we shouldn’t try to legislate our morality, the fact is there are many areas in which we do (i.e. gambling, marriage, seatbelts, helmets, hard hats…) There are areas of morality where even you are willing to draw a line. I draw the line at marijuana, and apparently so do a majority of other Americans.

Leave a Comment