Today’s quiz, boys and girls, will
consist of one multiple choice question, regarding a man who would be
president, and who actually has people
voting and working for him: Newt
Gingrich. Newt is (A) Megalomaniacal
(B) Dishonest and hypocritical (C) Racist (D) All of the above.
If you chose (D) all of the above,
you may now go to the head of the class.
Let us review –answer- by-answer, (A) Why that is the correct choice,
and (B) What it means for the Republican Party Establishment: Megalomaniacal: If Newt saying that he will have a colony
on the moon by the end of his second term, that could become our fifty first
state isn’t enough, or that he wants Brad Pitt to play him in
a movie, then perhaps this quote can qualify: “I
want to shift the entire planet. And I’m doing it.” The dishonesty and hypocrisy
labels are explained, of course, due to his role in trying to impeach President Clinton for sexual
misconduct, while committing sexual misconduct himself. Finally, calling Obama the “food stamp
president,” as well as a “Kenyan anti-colonialist,” (as if colonialism were a
good thing) should qualify Newt as a racist.
It is painfully obvious to sane
people that a Newt Gingrich presidency would make George
W. Bush look like a statesman for the ages by comparison. (No, I don’t think any of the others would be
much better, in fact, Rick
Santorum and/or
Ron Paul might be worse, but that’s for another discussion). The Republican establishment, led by the likes
of former senator and presidential candidate, Bob
Dole, has come out strongly against Gingrich. Dole has correctly noted that virtually no
one who has served with Gingrich has endorsed him. Gingrich
probably will not get the nomination.
But my question is if he did, would the Republican establishment, knowing
the damage he would do to the country, support him anyway, or would they
endorse President
Obama, despite their differences with him?
We know the Tea
Party people will put ideology and party above country every time. But what would the Republican establishment
do? Since Mitt Romney (not exactly a
paragon of integrity himself) will probably get the nomination, the question seems
moot. But it’s an interesting one,
nonetheless.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IN A
RELATED MATTER …
As
someone cursed by the need to understand people whose thought processes are
diametrically opposed to my own, I found a recent Bill Moyers’ program absolutely
fascinating. Moyer’s guest, social
psychologist, Jonathan Haidt had conducted
a study on how liberals and conservatives see the world differently. Haidt examined the dynamics involved when
presidential candidate and extreme libertarian, Ron Paul, was presented with a
scenario in which a healthy young man chose not to purchase health insurance, and
then became seriously ill. Would Paul
let the young man die? Normal Americans were aghast as tapes of the encounter
played on the news, showing the Republican audience members shouting, in a
scene reminiscent of the ancient Roman coliseums where Christians were fed to
lions, “Let him die!”
Haidt
explained that the conservative mindset is steeped in the tradition of
consequences and individual freedom. In
their minds, the young man had the right to decide not to buy health insurance,
but with that right came the obligation to deal with the consequences of his
decision. Haidt provided the analogy of the
ant and the grasshopper. He reminded us
that the grasshopper perishes as the result of his decision not to work, and that
the ant does nothing to assist the grasshopper.
Thanks
to Haidt’s work, I now have a vague idea of the “logic” at work in conservative
politics. I profoundly disagree with it,
but I kind of, almost, understand it. The conservatives
are concerned more with the rights of the individual than the group.
Haidt’s explication never mentions
any concern for the impact of the young man’s plight on society. It is purely a matter of the individual
having the right to literally gamble his life away.
This
conservative perspective views society as an aggregate of unrelated, disconnected
individuals. The
young man can gamble his life away, because, in their world view, the rest of
us are in no way diminished by allowing him to die. We owe
each other nothing.
This
world view might explain, for example, why people in rural areas where gun
violence is not an issue, are unwilling to compromise on gun legislation, even
if it means that most of their guns would be unaffected, and that many lives
might be saved in urban areas. This view
also helps explain the conservative view on extending unemployment insurance as
well as a host of other social issues. As
I said before, it’s not that I can begin to agree with it, I’m just trying to understand
it.
