Thoughts Aloud

My more ideological correspondents, conservative and libertarian alike, are frequently confounded by my attachment to reality, which purists tend to misconstrue as pragmatism. It is difficult to pin an ideological label on me, other than perhaps laissez faire capitalist. Since I desire nothing of government, but to be left alone, to live my life as I choose to live it, as a peaceful neighbor trading with others on a value for value basis, unmolested by altruistic busybodies, I don’t fit the mold of most ideologues. Individual Liberty being my highest ideal, were government not a necessary evil, I would be an anarchist. I must admit that the notion of a life devoid of politicians and politics is rather appealing; but since individual Liberty is actually enhanced, by a minimal level of law and order in my community, I can’t abide anarchism,.

The first step down into the real world, out of the cannabis cloud inhabited by the typical purist anarchist, lands one among the libertarians. These are the folks, typified by most of our Founding Fathers, who view government as a necessary evil, which must be kept to an absolute minimum, consistent with maintaining peace, law and order, and unimpeded free trade among freemen. Our Constitution, as originally written, is the epitome of a libertarian manifesto. As designed, it contains not one word regarding what a citizen must or must not do; but is entirely a constraint on what we will or will not permit government to do.

Interfering in our private economic or moral lives is patently unconstitutional. Our government exists to protect individual sovereignty and Liberty, thus assuring equal opportunity for all citizens, to fulfill whatever dreams their talent and industry are capable of achieving. It is not meant as a coercive tool for altruists, to pick winners and losers, redistribute the hard-earned wealth of individuals, or impose the morality of the majority upon a minority. Whether they wish to acknowledge it or not, altruistic Politically Correct and Piously Correct moralists alike, are the antithesis of Constitutionalists.

With only one glaring exception, which I have been unable to resolve (regarding the status of children), I find this a comfortable ideology and consider myself a libertarian, or more accurately, an objectivist (Ayn Rand). I can, and do, defend this worldview with zeal. However, like it or not, the preponderance of Americans have had the wisdom of our Founders ‘educated’ out of them, and have bought the notion that our republic is actually a democracy. They have been indoctrinated to believe that this ‘democracy’ is ideally organized into a two-party system, even though the Incumbrepublocrat Duopoly is an obvious farce, to those of us perched in the center of their arbitrary Left/Right political spectrum line.

Unfortunately, the Incumbrepublocrats have a pretty strong lock on the electoral process, and with the assistance of the complicit Media, Mainstream and not, very effectively marginalize any third-party insurgencies endeavoring to reform their oligarchy. Of course, it doesn’t help that staunch individualists are as difficult to organize as cats are to herd, and most of the activists in the (big el) Libertarian Party, are too dogmatic to consider downplaying their own lamentable penchant for cannabis clouds, to be taken seriously and endeavor to recruit conservatives. The vast majority of (small el) libertarians gave up on the official Libertarian Party years ago.

While as a TEA Party activist, I reckon I do my part to awaken sheeple and educate them on the true nature of our Republic, the reality of the world as it exists, constrains me to involve myself with Incumbrepublocrat politics. As a matter of practicality, it appears infinitely easier to capture control of one of the two established parties, than to organize and legitimize an effective third-party. Although the ideological bent of these parties has vacillated over the years, at present the Republican Party is the natural target.

Thus, since anyone meeting my ideals for the office of POTUS has a snowball’s chance in hell, for better or worse, it matters to me who the Republicans select as their candidate for 2012, because as it now stands, assuming the oligarchy permits the election to be held, and the ballot tallying is anywhere near honest, that individual will be our President for the next 4 or 8 years. Since my favorite (Palin) chose not to run, barring unforeseeable circumstances, my choice as a realist is going to end up being between Mitt and Newt. Some choice… but between them, I have to go with Newt.

Not surprisingly, the long knives are out in Newtville. The Republican Party establishment is having apoplexy over Newt’s meteoric rise in the polls, and the pundits are perplexed at his popularity among TEA Party types, and especially evangelicals. To me it is unsurprising, and their consternation is only further evidence of just how clueless the purveyors of conventional wisdom are, at gaging the mood of awakening Patriots in Flyover Country, and what makes us tick. Even Glenn Beck, who really ought to know better, is befuddled by Newt’s popularity and seems oblivious to the fact, that political ideology alone does not win the hearts and minds of the Jacksonian folk community, in the heartland of America.

First, full disclosure, I have always liked and admired Newt, even when vehemently disagreeing with him. The truth is, we have a lot in common. Born curious, we both grew up in the halcyon ’50s as globetrotting peripatetic Army brats, developing serviceable (if somewhat nerdy) minds, fascinated with emerging technology, space exploration, and futuristic speculation. Back then, ‘progressive’ wasn’t defined as regressing to serfdom in a totalitarian nanny state, and patriotic pride in America’s scientific advances was commonplace. With conservative fathers engaged in the business of defeating global communism, we were somewhat immune to the earlier Marxist professors, and escaped the looming hippy drug culture of the later ’60s by a few years.

We are both insatiable readers and avid writers, with very diverse interests beyond politics, which made it difficult to decide what we wanted to be when we grew up. With remarkably open minds, a willingness to consider alternative viewpoints, and enough common sense to modify our views as we matured, we readily changed careers as interesting opportunities presented themselves. Out-of-the-box and strategic thinking, novel idea showers, and a propensity for truthfully speaking our minds, are our trademarks. We have shared an enthusiastic outlook and zest for life, while utterly fearless in the face of adversity.

We have relished competition, unapologetically played to win, and were quite prepared to take the gloves off when necessary to do so. Finally, alas, we both failed to convince any woman to put up with our ever-changing interests and lifestyles, for more than 10 or 15 years. I don’t know about Newt; but as an erstwhile incurable romantic, I finally had to accept that with modern liberated women, life often consists of a series of monogamous relationships. Social mores have changed dramatically in our lifetime. When one’s mate is growing in a different direction, and home life becomes beyond unpleasant, staying together for the sake of appearances is dishonest, distracting, and sheer folly.

Thus, many of the bad raps Newt gets don’t resonate with me at all. He seems a perfectly fine fellow, so the first question becomes his ability to perform the job of POTUS, Since the bar has been set rather low of late, this goes without saying. Arguably, we haven’t had a real statesman in the office since Bush the elder. Of all the candidates in the field, I would only credit Newt with that label, although Huntsman shows promise. That is a big plus. Next, can he beat Obama? Of course he can; regardless of the media hype, the proverbial ham sandwich could beat Obama next year. Finally, is he conservative enough, or Is he a Progressive RINO? Does he really represent the Republican Party ‘establishment,’ who will sell out the TEA Party once he is elected?

These are the serious questions that we need to answer, and frankly, I am proud of the instincts of my fellow Jacksonians here. We can smell a phony a mile off. Carefully packaged candidates, obviously regurgitating the talking points their handlers think we want to hear, are a real turnoff to folks in Flyover Country. We would far prefer that a man give it to us straight, even if we disagree with him, than to piss on our leg and try to convince us it is raining. We like a man with spunk, who will brook no nonsense from the supercilious media elites, and will call them on their obvious agenda. Recalling our own youthful indiscretions, we are willing to forgive others theirs, if there is evidence that they have outgrown them and learned from the experience.

Those of us who are old enough to have been politically aware during Newt’s days in Congress, recall with fondness his achievements with the Contract with America, Welfare Reform, and a Balanced Budget. We understand that it took leadership, playing hardball, compromising with the opposition, and that not a few Republican elites got their egos bruised in the process. The very fact that so many establishment Republicans are squealing at the prospect of him as POTUS, seems like a pretty good reason to support him in itself.

For those of us who are sick of the Democrats always portraying Republican Presidents as idiots, and claiming Obama to be the most intellectual and erudite President ever, we relish the thought of Newt vs. Obama debates, and the notion of our pugnacious scrapper from Georgia, dogging their Harvard Law Review specimen all over the map, until he agrees to seven real Lincoln/Douglas style debates is truly delicious. They would be so popular, that they could probably sell tickets for enough to fund their campaigns with the revenue.

Then, the very nature of our system of government makes the job of POTUS rather inconsequential on so-called domestic issues, which the Federal government shouldn’t be involved with anyway. Thus, Presidents eventually tend to focus on foreign affairs, which actually is as it should be. Having a statesman of Newt’s caliber articulating American exceptionalism on the international stage, instead of an obsequious dolt bowing to foreign potentates and making toasts during their national anthems, would be a welcome relief to our sensibilities. One imagines our allies would sleep a little better at night, and our enemies a little less so.

But, as I have said before, the clincher for me was the astounding speech he gave, identifying the cancer on our body politic as the out-of-control judiciary, and suggesting what could be done to wrest control back from the lawyer class.  If you haven’t watched it, it is must-see TV. The man with the insight and guts to give that speech, without a teleprompter, and only an occasional glance at his notes, is the man we need endeavoring to put this country back on the right track. If he could accomplish this one goal alone, he would earn forgiveness for any and all past transgressions. Bar none! 

As for the notion that he is a big government Progressive, masquerading as a conservative, I think taken as a whole, his record suggests otherwise. I certainly have less fear that he is campaigning one way, but might govern another, than I do for Romney. My political positions have changed drastically over my lifetime, and I reckon a politician deserves the right to gain a little wisdom from his experiences in life too. Newt doesn’t deserve to be demonized any more than any other politician, for advocating reform of popular programs rather than outright repeal, even though today we consider them unconstitutional. 

The New Deal politicians are long gone, and those we elect now must play the hand they are dealt. A realist can’t expect miracles, and even if it were within the power of those we elect in 2012 to abolish all entitlement programs, doing so all at once would just start a revolution, by the tax spenders. Witness Greece. If it is a revolution we really want, why bother with elections at all? Just stop paying taxes, and watch what happens.  ◄Dave► 

25 Responses to “In Defense of Newt”