If You're Looking for a Profligate Authoritarian, Gingrich Is Your Man

Print
9 Comments
Post a Comment
|
Email
Tweet

By Jacob Sullum (Archive) · Wednesday, December 14, 2011

The first time Newt Gingrich disgusted me was in 1995, when the freshly installed speaker of the House proposed the death penalty for drug smugglers. Fifteen years later, I had a similar response when Gingrich demanded government action to stop Muslims from building a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center.

From the perspective of someone who wants to minimize the role of government in every aspect of our lives, Gingrich is bad in the ways conservatives tend to be bad -- and then some. At the same time, he is generally not good in the ways conservatives tend to be good, which makes me wonder why anyone would prefer him to Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate.

Gingrich's bloodthirsty enthusiasm for the never-ending, always-failing war on drugs is especially appalling because he casually dismissed his own pot smoking as "a sign that we were alive and in graduate school in that era."

Last month, he expressed admiration for Singapore's drug policy, which includes forcible testing of suspected drug users, long prison sentences for possession and mandatory execution of anyone caught with more than a specified amount. "They've been very draconian," Gingrich said, meaning it as a compliment.

Last year, Gingrich likewise put his characteristically reckless spin on criticism of the "Ground Zero mosque." Unlike Sarah Palin, who urged the project's supporters not to build it but conceded they had a constitutional right to do so, Gingrich insisted "there should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia" -- and called for state or federal intervention to enforce that arbitrary edict. He nevertheless presents himself as a champion of religious liberty.

Gingrich's apocalyptic view of the "long war" between "the modern world" and "radical Islamism" also has led him to endorse censorship and warrantless domestic wiretaps, along with the suspension of due process that many conservatives think is appropriate whenever the president cries "national security." And lest such constitutional violations be overturned, Gingrich recommends that Congress abolish the courts of judges who reach decisions it does not like, or simply declare its acts exempt from judicial review.

Aside from the Second Amendment, Gingrich does not seem to have much regard for the Bill of Rights, and that includes the 10th Amendment, which reflects the Framers' intent that the federal government have only those powers expressly granted by the Constitution, the rest being "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." At Saturday's Republican presidential debate, Gingrich said one of his rivals, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, "got me engaged about three years ago on this whole 10th Amendment in a big, serious way."

By his own account, then, Gingrich, who served more than two decades in Congress and brags about his credentials as an historian, did not begin to think seriously about the limits that federalism imposes on the national government until 2008. That may explain why he did not realize until this year that a law requiring people to buy health insurance exceeds Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause.

Gingrich's lack of familiarity with "this whole 10th Amendment" may also explain his detailed policy recommendations for education, an area where the federal government has no constitutional authority. Not to mention his defense of government-funded moon bases and Mars missions as ways to "give young people a reason to study science and math and technology."

Constitutional issues aside, Gingrich's tendency to think government should subsidize whatever strikes his fancy, whether it's extraterrestrial colonies, prescription drugs or alternative energy sources, does not inspire confidence in his alleged fiscal conservatism. On that point the most damning comment I've seen recently came from New York Times columnist David Brooks. Last week, Brooks, a "national greatness" conservative who believes "energetic government is good for its own sake," wrote that Gingrich "has no Hayekian modesty to restrain his faith in statist endeavor" and therefore "loves government more than I do." Yikes.

Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.

Print
9 Comments
Post a Comment
|
Email
Tweet

Comments

Richard Ryan

I started to read the above article and stopped when I got as far ask, Gingrich is bad in the way conservatives tend to be bad. That statement told me all I need to know about Mr.Sullum. Garbage in, garbage out.

Richard Ryan

Lamar,Missouri - Birthplace of Harry S Truman

Posted December 14, 2011 at 12:33:06 PM

Ragweed

Tony,

I have read few of your writings, but you strike me as one who would fawn over Rand Paul and some of his crazy ideas.

I happen to agree, and have had the same opinion, with Newt on the drug smuggler issue. Drugs are not a state issue. Drugs are killing this country, and until drug smugglers are faced head-on with stiff and severe penalties, we will still have a serious drug problem in this country. Comparing his pot smoking episodes in college to the activities of a drum smuggler is irresponsible. How many people, who participated in the indulgences of the 60s, now have a totally different attitude about drugs? If serious penalties for drug smugglers aren't the answer, what is? It certainly isn't the so-called war on drugs - a massive waste of money!

About the limits that federalism imposes on the national government, I believe most everyone fell into the trap that started with Roosevelt. Once everyone found out the federal government could do just about everything for them, the cat was out of the bag. I'm not saying it was good. It certainly wasn't. But I believe most everyone fell into that trap. But, I believe everyone got a wake-up call when Newt did, right about the time the Tea Party started to wake everyone up. Thank goodness so many people, including Newt and many more of our politicians, have awakened to the fact that we have too much government.

Does Gingrich have a tendency to think government should subsidize whatever strikes his fancy? How so, when he led the efforts to balance the budget in the Clinton years. C'mon, be fair.

All of us have to admit that we do not have a perfect candidate. All of them have baggage of one kind or another.

One last thing..... for you to make a point about a conservative, OK, admittedly a moderate one, by using a quote from David Brooks, originally a liberal who supposedy saw the light, and who could, at best, be accurately described as a moderate, is a sucker punch.

I thought you were supposed to be a conservative columnist.....

Posted December 14, 2011 at 12:54:19 PM

Bill James

It appears that RINO's are very afraid of Newt.

Posted December 14, 2011 at 1:28:33 PM

Howard Last

"Aside from the Second Amendment, Gingrich does not seem to have much regard for the Bill of Rights . . ." Wrong, he also has not much regard for the Second Amendment either.

Posted December 14, 2011 at 1:51:44 PM

Constitutionalist Conservative

Gingrich has been a flip flopper every bit as much as Romney has been and probably much worse. Neither one of them will fill the bill this time around. There is too much at stake for the nation.

Ron Paul will be the one to beat this time around.

I've heard from more and more people that have been staunch conservatives all their lives that they are voting for Paul. I think the GOP establishment is going to go in to over drive to try and destroy him. But I don't think it's going to work this time.

I'm praying for Ron Paul and for our nation. You may not agree with him on foreign policy but if you can live with what Obama has done to us, you should certainly be able to give Paul a fair shake on this issue.

Posted December 14, 2011 at 2:27:45 PM

Archie

I believe it was Ronald Reagan who said something of this nature: "The trouble with a liberal is that he doesn't know that he doesn't know".

Posted December 14, 2011 at 6:28:38 PM

Orf

Is Gingrich authoritarian? You bet! Gingrich could easily beat Osama Obummer IF the mainslime media would not amplify all of Gingrich's many gaffs, pronouncements, and failures. But we know they will. The battle would be displayed for the average Joe as the Republican demagogue with a flawed history versus Obummer, the greatest president since FDR.

Only a true conservative with no skeletons in the closet can stand up to the media blast with its innuendos and half truths. And a woman would have a distinct advantage because too harsh an attack would work against the Anointed One. That means Michelle Bachmann. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum would be acceptable substitutes. But PLEASE NO GingRom! Haven't we learned from the failures of McCain and the doleful Dole?

Posted December 15, 2011 at 4:00:30 PM

Garry G

If you "wonder why anyone would prefer him (Gingrich) to Mitt Romney", I'll tell you why. Two words: ROMNEY-CARE! I don't think Gingrich is the best candidate, but if we want to have any chance at repealing or even slowing the implementation of Obamacare, we cannot nominate Mitt Romney. The fact that Romney would even consider a program like Romneycare shows his complete disregard for the concept of limited size and power of government. To nominate Romney is to basically admit that Republicans only opposed Obamacare because it was a Democrat idea, not because it is an unconstitutional, big-brother, bloated big-government, let-grandma-die-because-she's-too-expensive-to-treat, fiscally unsustainable time time bomb that will ruin both the country and the best medical system in the world.

If you want to get rid of Obamacare, don't vote for Romney!

Posted December 15, 2011 at 6:28:25 PM

Daylo

I believe this article was pre-planned with a great deal of salivation during the writing. Newt's attackers are out in full force.

I say, the wheel of fortune was spun with Barack Obama and even though I, happily did not vote for Obama, I am by far more willing to spint the wheel of fortune for Newt because heretofore, there is no way on God's Green Earth that Newt could EVER be worse than Barack Hussein Obama. I never realized until now that in less than four short years, our country could be brought so low, socialism shoved down our throats and class warfare the mantra to divide the entire country by the President of the United States.

There is no way Newt could EVER be worse than this.

Posted December 17, 2011 at 1:01:12 AM

Patriot Headline Report

The Right Opinion

More Opinion

Grassroots Commentary

More Commentary

Policy and Analysis

Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher

The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund

Name	(required, displayed)
Email	(required, not displayed)
Comments

Navigation

Options