I Should Say That I Don’t Like One Bit How Gingrich Is Criticizing the President

As far as I’m concerned, anti-Bush porn

The fundamental disagreement between Speaker Gingrich and I is that he is far too practical and can’t see the flood that is American politics. He’s probably thinking there is a “center,” or those who are more liberal that he can get into the fold in order to run a campaign.

I have written before about the debasement of speech in our current climate, and how looking for “smart solutions” (i.e. his proposal for educational policy, his ideas about consolidating economic gain) his  to problems might be good politics in terms of getting elected, but terrible politics if America is to be a force for good.

If Newt Gingrich wants to win me over – me, who considers him the most qualified candidate for the job – he has to start taking on the climate of conspiracy theory which makes whatever President Bush do seem wrong.

If he does not start slamming that climate, the climate which looked for all sorts of dirt on this Administration, could barely make any of it stick, and in the process obstructed its ability to govern and conduct a war, he will probably demonstrate that he does not have what it takes to govern.

The problem with that climate is that it demands perfection. No elected official is allowed to do things like “conduct a foreign policy,” because people might die or things might go wrong. The idea behind corn-fuel is that rid of “foreign oil,” we can sit isolationist and not worry about the rest of the world. The criticism of the President on any number of fronts, actually, reduces to anarchism (where people believe all is perfect if “left alone”) or “he isn’t bold enough.”

No one seems to take into account how tough the job of being President is. He doesn’t have choices half the time. Most things the Executive does are mandated. To be shouted down by the people and Congress and the judiciary is the end of the Presidency. He needs some support, after all.

I mean, you know full well that Rightist criticism of the President is getting far more strident and far more irrational. I don’t like his budget or immigration policy. But that doesn’t mean that he picked these things because he’s a liberal – he probably goes that course because of what is feasible. Similarly, he can’t solve all the problems of the war just by being bolder. He’s actually extremely bold right now.

The criticism advanced against him by the Right is that he’s not bold on conservative issues. And I’m just like, at some point, a leader has to be trusted. I don’t know what I would do to get 12 million illegals out of this country. I know this, strengthening the INS would inevitably result in lots of good people who aren’t illegal getting kicked out. And deportation proceedings aren’t exactly cozy nice times – the publicity he’d get would destroy the Administration once and for all, if he built the INS to the level he needed to in order to deny any sort of amnesty wholly. Furthermore, the idea behind a big budget actually makes tactical sense: the idea once upon a time was to cut out the Democrats’ base from under them. One way to do this is staff government with conservatives. Cutting taxes while spending means, of course, that government can’t grow forever: the rate of governmental spending would have to decrease, and what would be left are budget cutting Republicans in government more amenable to dismantling it. Again, I don’t agree with any of this stuff, but isn’t it amazing how quick everyone is to judge before trying to think about why people do things?

If rationales like these haven’t been trotted out before, it’s because of how we conduct politics. We shout at each other. Newt knows this. He knows it has to change.

And it has to change now. I have my disagreements with the President, but demanding perfection from him is not politics. And Newt’s criticisms add up to “he needed to have the trust of the people and be above the conspiracy theory,” and that’s just impossible in today’s day and age. Those of us on the Right couldn’t stop Michael Moore from making a film that was basically slander and driving voters Leftward for literally lying. Until we can moderate the conversation, we can’t hold the administration responsible, for the most part, about what is said about it. It is nearly impossible to be President in this day and age.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Filed under: conservative, Double Standards, newt gingrich, Presidency

Gingrich on Church and State, Or, As Always, Newt Gingrich Is The Only Political Figure Who Says Anything Worth Thinking About

He saw that as the Bible requires Christians to bear witness to the Truth, so too does the Declaration of Independence require Americans to bear witness to certain self-evident truths.

To be sure, the Truth of the Bible is not identical with the truths of the Declaration. But the two orders of truth do overlap, and where they overlap, they powerfully reinforce each other. Indeed, the Declaration assumes many of the central teachings of the Bible.

When our Declaration asserts “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, it makes some key assumptions.

It assumes that God is sovereign over the universe.

It assumes that God created man.

- Newt Gingrich, from the “Liberty University Commencement Address“

Strictly speaking, I don’t think Gingrich is quite right here. Jefferson uses the phrase “Nature’s God” elsewhere precisely to distance these “inalienable rights” from “God” proper. The American Constitution is a very secular document, and the religious beliefs of its Framers – Deists for the most part – are anathema to Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Muslims alike.

I’m not saying this to say Newt is lying, or that America is meant to destroy Christianity or anything like that. I just don’t want to simplify our history for you, and let you think there are easy answers. In fact, what makes the rest of Gingrich’s speech so compelling is that he does not allow for easy answers about the relationship of religion and the state:

The Founders considered religion a great benefit to society. They had a very straightforward belief that the purpose of government was the protection of liberty, and that the maintenance of liberty inevitably required virtue among its citizens. The “pursuit of Happiness” was actually a Scottish enlightenment phrase meaning virtue and wisdom.

And if virtue was to survive in the American experiment, it would require “true religion”, which was that religion which cultivates the virtues necessary to the protection of liberty.

Implicit within this vision of the Founding Fathers is a pluralistic sensibility. Any true religion would be therefore deserving of the respect of the government, which would include the freedom to express in public the moral principles of such a true religion.

Constitutional self-government requires personal self-government; the more the government can rely on its citizens, the less it will need to govern them because they will govern themselves.

This belief that religion was an indispensable support of republican government was to be found throughout the founding generation.

Its strongest and clearest statement is to be found in George Washington’s “Farewell Address”. He said:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.

It is this kind of subtlety that no candidate on the Democratic or Republican side can match right now. Gingrich moves from almost saying “the Christian God underlies the Declaration of Independence” to “virtue and wisdom” were hallmarks of the Scottish enlightenment that informed how the Founders thought about religion. The message is clear for those who think atheism is a good thing: if America is atheist, there will be no virtue in civic life. None whatsoever. In fact, the lack of virtue from religion will mean the death of the intellect.

But religion conceived rightly – “true religion” – ironically leads to an acceptance of all religions by those who can govern themselves. In other words, the test of a true religion is how the practitioners of it behave: if they suicide bomb and raise money for terrorists in order to throw another nation “into the sea,” as they may say, that sort of thing is probably not going to come under “true religion.” And Gingrich beautifully takes apart the Wahhabi ideology as not treating anyone as equal, and thus not respecting the fundamental tenet of the Declaration.

I can’t begin to express to you how good this rhetoric is. In an address meant for a fundamentalist Christian audience, Gingrich has managed to talk to those who might be more secularly inclined to see the good religion has, as the tolerance an atheist might demand can only come from religion. Gingrich shows how the American order has a nice little system for showing how religion is judged objectively by the government – it must promote “civic virtue” – and thus shows how PC nonsense is a break from the Founding, even if one conceives of the Founding as secular. For political correctness is identity politics without necessitating virtue; it is tolerance used to justify intolerance. He also brings back one of my favorite themes, that of equality, and shows that it is about treating people with dignity, and that is the fundamental flaw of the brand of Islamism we are fighting, as well as the terrorists. Dignity for them only comes through violence.

Which brings us to how the modern secular American order and the Biblical order agree: both seek peace, and realize that peace has a lot to do with justice, and justice involves standing up for each other. I can’t think of a more positive or beautiful way of rendering why our religious diversity is important, and I am really stunned this speech is not getting more attention.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Filed under: american politics, Christian, conservative, Muslim, newt gingrich, Religion

BTW SOMETHING

Ok so heres the skinny. Ive been extra busy with my buisness outside of The Irate Nation. I have made efforts in recruiting some guest bloggers. And to them I am greatful.
So life has been busy, times have been chaotic and the world is still on fire. Billy Joel may have not started the fire… but the liberal fire starters of last year, today and soon tomorrow haven’t held back one bit.

Never fear loyal TIN fans. There will be further postings here. And the leftards and all their socialist types.. they have yet to feel reality’s gravity.

BTW SOMETHING:

Filed under: 411, Activism, american politics, Booya!!!, Christian, conservative, Daily, Fred Thompson, Free Speech, Guard The Borders, history, Humor, Justice, lincoln, Military, National Security, News, newt gingrich, Pro Life, Reagan, Religion, Republicans, romney, Security, Stop The Aclu, Support The Troops, Tom Tancredo, Video, War On Terror

Index of Ashok’s Posts for TIN

These posts are all pretty long. No one is under any obligation to read any of these. I just needed a place to list them.

Theory

• Epic Literature and Film, And Why One Might Care
• Being Qualified for the Presidency: The Question of Prior Experience
• Being Qualified for the Presidency: The Question of Education
• Can Christianity Solve All Our Political Problems?
• On Federalist 51
• Winning the Peace to Win the Future
• The Story of America
• Does Technology Force Us to Reconsider the Nature of Politics?

On Media

• The Future of Conservative Media?
• Some Suggestions for a Conservative Agenda
• Comparison of Gingrich’s and Giuliani’s Websites
• Can the Internet be harnessed for a more productive good?

On Newt Gingrich

• Speaker Gingrich on Math and Science Education
• Speaker Gingrich on Tax and Economic Policy
• A Speech for Newt, Just In Case He Runs
• Why Newt Might Want To Consider Running Two Years Early
• Speaker Gingrich on North Korean Policy

Personal

• Guest Blogger Introduces Self
• I Hate That Other Bloggers Get Attention

Technorati Tags: gingrich, presidency, epic, movies, federalist, media

Powered by ScribeFire.

Filed under: american politics, Congress, conservative, elections, newt gingrich, Republicans

The Story of America

A response to Speaker Gingrich’s reading list. I don’t he’s aware of how many gaps we as Americans have in our education about this country, and I think at the risk of being patronizing, it is best to go over the basics, and not recommend a bunch of trendy (my word for “crap”) books no one will ever read. A side, arrogant note: the other day I was thinking about why my audience is so small, and I realized it was because I don’t treat people like idiots.

All of American history is the attempt to reconcile liberty and equality. Each depends on the other, but a movement to the extreme of either one endangers the other.

1. Republic

American republicanism does not posit that there is an easy relation between these two concepts, like the Marxist view of history, where the end of history is the full reconciliation of both concepts. That is not to say that Marxism is not complicated or even thoughtful in some respects – but by its own admission, all the trouble one has with bringing the two together has to do with our “false consciousness” which is propagated by those who control the “means of production.” Now I don’t want to get into a lengthy digression on superstructure, so I will just say this: by making history have a good guy and a bad guy, the Marxist worldview does radically simplify political questions, and in that sense I say there is an “easy relation” posited. I do recommend everyone read The Communist Manifesto when they can (it actually isn’t long), for I am just glossing Marx here, and I do not know if I am being representative of Marxist positions truly.

Filed under: american politics, history, lincoln, newt gingrich

Does Technology Necessitate Changes In the Nature of Politics?

Note: Despite my criticisms of Speaker Gingrich, I endorse him 100% for President – I feel he is the only person even remotely qualified for the job among potential candidates. There will be more criticism soon; the “reading list” he put forward recently for Americans is pretty awful.

The British arrest terrorists plotting to bring down ten airliners in one day over the Atlantic. One of the arrested couples planned to use their eight month old baby to hide the bomb material as baby milk. We have no comprehension of the ferocity and savagery we are facing when a mother will kill her own eight month old baby in order to kill us.

- Newt Gingrich, “Address to AIPAC“

If two or three cities are destroyed because of terrorism both the US and Israel’s democracy will be eroded and both will become greater dictatorial societies…. The terrorist threats are larger and more formidable than the political system in Israel or the US can cope with…. We lack the language and goals to address the new environment along with the speed and intensity to counter the contemporary threats. If we have no strategy we will need to be intellectually honest to consider the next step once two cities have been destroyed.

- Newt Gingrich, “Remarks to the Herzliya Conference“

Every constitution is a comment on what man’s nature is; each one attempts to state what is Good and prescribe how it may be achieved. Following Locke in the Second Treatise, we “join in society with others… for the mutual preservation of [our] lives, liberties and estates.” But that is our “society,” our ordering oriented towards the Good, which is for us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: not every ordering values liberty or the individual determination of happiness as much. Tribal politics, for example, seems to take at its basis a communal notion of the good; liberty for some is subordinate to ritual which makes the community more sensitive to each other and posits simpler things as the basis of unity.

Now I seem to be dismissive of what Speaker Gingrich is alluding to in his thought, as I seem to be saying there are more permanent tendencies and manifestations of man’s nature which define politics. He seems to be saying that situations define the politics one uses: the implication of his wanting to develop “urban technologies,” described in his words below -

The US, Israel and the West have not developed technologies to command urban spaces similar to the sophisticated technologies applied to air and sea-power. Urban technologies have not developed extensively since the 1940’s, unlike that of air and sea. Similarly intelligence capabilities must be advanced and sufficiently integrated to contribute to bettering our urban capabilities.

- the implication is that people as resources are the key to these “technologies” – these are less about having killing machines as much as making each of us information gatherers and perhaps even killing machines ourselves. The implication about the enemy is that they are defined by the technologies they use, i.e. “suicide bombers” can be said to make people literal parts of the bomb.

The threat we face is very grave right now, and I would be lying to you if I told you there were easy solutions. But I would also be lying to you if I told you that orienting ourselves towards our security only would fix everything: I firmly believe that when we conservatives wanted to win the Cold War at all costs, we neglected what the Left was doing to our schools, and we are still in a similar reactionary mode, where the knowledge needed to maintain and preserve the peace is unknown to us.

People can become tools, and politics can be severely lowered in dignity when that happens, and create a cycle where people are continually lowered in dignity (i.e. notice how slavery in the South made slaves and slaveowners less – Fredrick Douglass and Lincoln both have arguments regarding this phenomenon). But that implies technology cannot change the nature of politics, because it is the falling away from the political that is characteristic of man making himself or others a tool only: in other words, the ideas used to define a political realm specify exactly when a body politic is going to pieces.

What I do not like about Speaker Gingrich’s formulation regarding these problems is the implication that something perhaps structural has to change (i.e. we need more experts and centralization or privatization to fix the problems). I actually think the remedy to many of our ills is Constitutional – since the President is a lightning rod for criticism, and the Executive is far weaker than the Legislative branch (which, through demagoguery like the War Powers Act and idiocy like making a fuss over lawyers fired) and the Judicial branch (which seems beyond reproach nowadays), why not just assert that an intelligent foreign policy can be only conducted when separation of powers and checks and balances are taken more seriously? After all, if that happens, one will get a stronger Executive that can plan and take care of these problems, and while we as citizens can help out with our security, we need not obsess over it. Freedom from fear is a pretty important freedom, especially when fear alone threatens to destroy self-rule. And the biggest fear I have right now is an attempted structural change when a simple return to the Founding principles would work.

Technorati Tags: newt gingrich, foreign policy, national security, presidency, locke

Powered by ScribeFire.

Filed under: american politics, foreign policy, National Security, newt gingrich, War On Terror

Winning the Peace to Win the Future

Will be in Texas the 11th – 24th. Internet access will be spotty, and I have exams to take. This is my last post for The Irate Nation for some time.

Thank you for your patience with me.

How Conservatives Can Win the Peace
Ashok Karra

Irate Nate asks, quite rightfully:

Why do i have to pretend the left actually gives a damn about my family, my values, my religion, my pay checks, my freedoms, my choices.

Similarly, Right Wing News has said about Ann Coulter that she should be allowed to say whatever she wants to say as long as the Left is given a free pass on statements about killing the VP.

This is an excellent opportunity to address some really deep issues, issues that will never be addressed by any candidate out in the open, and that we are the better for talking about, even if we disagree. I’m not going to be shy about it: the issues raised here are a whole other way of thinking about politics – politics not as a battleground, but as a duty where we can be truly free and happy. I should say that for the years I’ve been on the Internet, not once have I seen a sustained, thoughtful debate about what we want America to look like, and how we want to get there. Everything in terms of the way we conduct politics on here is a form of complaining. (Even the good news from Iraq is a way of complaining about the MSM.)

There is a very deep reason for this: Constitutionalism presupposes a “spirit of negation” (cf. Montesquieu, Hegel) where the passions of people aren’t channeled into having a real debate about what is Good and how we can get there, but rather used to pass judgment on what is absolutely wrong. Congress is set up to battle with itself, and then do battle with two other branches, which are set up to battle it. Furthermore, the very size of the United States is counted on by Madison in Federalist 10 to produce “factions,” which he sees as a direct result of liberty, and which only exist of course to battle other factions, and factionalize some more. The logic of “special interests” is written into the Constitution – for the most cynical of reasons, McCain is wrong: poor man probably really does believe in a greater unity for Americans.

Filed under: american politics, conservative, Free Speech, liberal agenda, newt gingrich, Republicans