Newt Gingrich Co-Sponsored the 1987 Pro-Fairness Doctrine Bill.
Now sure, people evolve. And political positions change, oftentimes for reasons that have less to do with expediency than they do a very laudable intellectual reconsideration.
Having said that, my concern with Newt was and continues to be that he is simply too clever by half. And his kernel argument seems always to be that, because a particular position is currently favored by a plurality of citizens, it behooves the GOP candidate who might on ideological grounds oppose a populist position to nevertheless adopt it, so that at least the GOP can have some say in how that issue permeating the cultural ethos is eventually enveloped and framed legislatively.
Or to put it in simpler terms, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em — and then try to grab a leadership role in the club.
That kind of pragmatism has a certain practical appeal and, from a strategic standpoint, may even sound compelling. But the problem is, by ceding the initial ground to your ideological opponent in order to deploy some sort of Trojan Horse strategy, you are nevertheless of necessity forced to do so from within their encampment.
And to my way of thinking, that has been the very long-term strategy that has steadily moved the country ever leftward.
Reagan reached compromises because he was able to pitch, defend, and sell conservative ideology to the voters — and the left was forced to take notice, and in many cases to capitulate out of popular pressure.
Today’s Democrat Party is less likely to bend to popular will — but that is precisely why pitching, defending, and selling conservative and classically liberal ideas is the proper antidote: if the popular will turns back toward free market capitalism and individualism, and the left refuses to move with the popular will, then over time the Democrat Party will either be forced to self-correct, or else become risk a time in the political wilderness.
But only if there is a clear distinction between the parties. And there isn’t, so long as the GOP continues to elevate ruling-class candidates to positions of leadership.
Gingrich has sounded staunch on the campaign trail and in debates. And it’s quite possible he’s evolved and is now more of a movement conservative than he’s often been in the past.
But his continued defense of why he’s taken certain positions consonant with liberal ideology — namely, that he’s doing so to water-down the effectiveness of the left’s legislative pushes — is still, it seems to me, a concession, and in particular, is a tacit admission that for our side to win, we have to do so through a kind of legislative subterfuge.
I don’t believe that. And neither should any of you.
That Newt-mentum you mentioned.
Expected an upswing but this still surprised me.
Newt sure knows how to get in Liberals’ faces, from way back, and destroy them intellectually with fact and reason. If he’s weighted things that-a-way, no problem, and Romney-care Christyophiles, eat your friggin’ hearts out.
Full pdf of poll. Which was…
National polls don’t mean much at this time as the results of the primaries will cause swings and drop outs. Polls of the individual early States are more telling.
Another National one pdf here which sampled…
Senator Tom Coburn in “Breach of Trust” said the Newt became part of the problem when Newt became Speaker of the House.
I think that falls right in line with the idea of Newt’s opportunistic pragmatism.
I think Gingrich would make a heck of a VP however. Newt would be a wonderful attack dog.
By the way, Christopher Hitchens once debated Newt. According to Hitchens, if memory serves, Hitchens made the mistake of dismissing Newt, because, at the time, Newt was relatively unknown. Hitchens was destroyed by Gingrich, by Hitchens own admission.
Iowa polls from RCP.
New Hampshire.
South Carolina. South Carolina is winner take all, as is Florida 10 days later.
PPP has long been sort of weird. I’d have to see a few more of these to take it seriously.
I can see Newt settling in to a Sec. State appointment, though he might rather have Sec. Def. It’s possible he’d even do a half-way decent job trimming the Foggy Bottom Hedges.
See, when I read “Pro-Fairness Doctrine Bill”, my brain instantly came up with “Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog-Rule”.
I don’t trust him to perform the necessary but politically incorrect actions rather than the expedient and approval-raising actions.
I agree with sdferr. No Newt at the top of the ticket for me.
But the problem is, by ceding the initial ground to your ideological opponent in order to deploy some sort of Trojan Horse strategy, you are nevertheless of necessity forced to do so from within their encampment.
He’s also ignoring the fact that onces the gubmint institutes something—no matter how ill-conceived and destructive—there’s no getting rid of it.
And that once you get the thing implemented, if your Trojan Horse strategy is to destroy it from within, then the Dems get to point out what mean old stinky-heads the GOP are.
We’d all be better off if we recognized that the public often has not heard the other side of the story, and that educating the masses is better than kow-towing to them.
Principled man, this Newt.
I’d like to believe Gingrich could be trusted this time with a prominent political position in D.C. (POTUS, Veep or a senior Cabinet post), but it would be a victory of hope over experience.
He’s the one guy currently not on my “never gonna vote for” list I am most reluctant to vote for if he gets the nomination.
I believe he has admitted it was a mistake, but his “sitting on a couch with Nancy warning about Global Warming” was a step too far for me. I will never vote for him as POTUS for that.
“Newt Gingrich on the move politically is as dangerous as a wounded wolverine.”
Okay, how about Dan Rather, Charles Johnson and Newt Gingrich at BlogCon 2012! They can be in the conservative-feminist swimsuit competition too.
– Dan Rather in front of a camera is as dangerous to your sanity as Hannibal Lecter
If Cain is destroyed by mere rumors, imagine what will happen to Newt with the truth…
Twitter is currently ramming this Cain interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in my eyeholes. Haven’t had time to check it out but I guess it’s the Next Thing.
uh-oh, now this may knock me off the Cain wagon:
This is new to me also:
Geez, I would think cops would be first on the list to de-unionize, ‘cuz of the conflict of interest thing…
Okay, I’ve checked it out now. (And checked out the video where I didn’t trust the write up.)
He doesn’t seem to know some things I’d expect him to know.
“He doesn’t seem to know some things I’d expect him to know.”
That is very troubling.
Link
i’m still looking for wtf baracky was doing overthrowing two regimes that were somewhat sympathetic to the usa for al qaida thugs? maybe rinopundit knows.
Link
when he was backing dede in ny 23 or supporting global warming or he felt those opposed to in state tuition for illegals that gave me pause. oh wait herminator didn’t do that.
Ohio’s collective bargaining law differed from Wisconsin in at least one key aspect: Wisconsin exempted police and fire personnel from the law.
yea giving union thugs the ability to threaten the public with public safety concerns not a good move.
Busting my balls here, Lee?
Newrouter, public unions are the heart and soul of the big government/socialist takeover of our country. Cains performance suggests he is unaware(much less uninformed) of their impact.
I find that a little alarming. It’s like I’m looking for a dragon slayer, and finding out the guy I’ve been hoping to take the job don’t even know the fucking dragon can breath fire and fly.
It’s troubling.
Okay, by context with #26, I see you’re not.
My incessantly sarcastic friends have crippled my poor brain.
Oh, yeah bh. See #19.
Heh, that’s why I asked. Thought maybe I left my chin sticking out with “I’d expect him to know” even though I obviously don’t know things I should know either.
I’m kinda heartbroken over here…
“even though I obviously don’t know things I should know either.”
Well sure, but you don’t hire a general that knows less about warfare than your average heavy equipment operator either.
“Cains performance suggests he is unaware(much less uninformed) of their impact.”
Link
oh my trolling for sumthing.
Link
Aw, I don’t care about that horseshit newrouter, it isn’t his incomplete knowledge of all the various public unions that exist that has me twisted. It’s that he thinks they are OK in practice, with maybe more oversight or something.
Public unions and constitutional limited government are incompatible, and I can’t believe I’ve just been assuming Cain knew this.
Shit!
Cain was right about Ohio: not exempting police and fire allowed the left to demagogue. We shouldn’t have to do that — Walker did it, and I suspect he wouldn’t have if he thought it politically viable to defeat all of it at once — but the fact is, I bet even now Kasich believes that. And he’ll likely try to reintroduce legislation that gives that exemption.
As to the rest, I doubt Cain is to the left of FDR; but as newrouter’s links keep pointing out, I don’t know that we’re getting the entire nuance of Cain’s answers.
“I’m kinda heartbroken over here…”
Ditto Lee,
Much like Newt’s “cant beat em then join em” strategy; Cain’s incorrect assumption about the status of federal workers collective bargaining rights supports the enemy’s cause. It will be tough for him to put that horse back in the barn.
Paging Mr. Thompson to the red phone, Mr Thompson please pick up the red phone!
“As to the rest, I doubt Cain is to the left of FDR”
On this issue he appears to be. From the link bh put up:
The country disregarded FDR on the point, and now we are were we are.
The whole primary horse race boils down to one thing.
Who do you TRUST to represent your beliefs in the Executive Branch?
There isn’t a person in that race who would not do a better job than Obama.
The press and pundits don’t pull that lever, you do.
So if Newt sponsored for legislation you don’t agree with fine.
If Perry was a democrat before he saw the light fine.
If Cain doesn’t have all the answers fine.
If Romney does not impress, fine
Go with your gut. Who do you trust.
Then vote for them.
I agree, Lee. The answer was problematic, particularly inasmuch as he seemed to be trying to play to the room. He did say that asking for too much until the bank is broken is bad; but then, WE are the bank, and he needs to know that and articulate it.
Having said that, I’ll wait to hear what he says if asked about it again. Unlike some, I don’t mind if he thinks these things through when pressed and comes to the right conclusion.
Everyone can watch the collective bargaining videos right here.
He says he supports collective bargaining for public unions multiple times.
Unfortunately, he is to the left of FDR on this one issue.
And, after watching the video, I personally doubt that he was referring to the exceptions that newrouter highlighted. Seems he thought that federal employees had collective bargaining. Certainly didn’t express any qualifier. Think he just assumed they had it. (Could I be wrong? Maybe. Could I be right? I’d say that would be the most straightforward way to interpret the video.)
Standard caveats apply. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, etc, etc, etc.
“And, after watching the video”
Herman Cain rallies tea party in Madison Feb 19, 2011
Yeah, I was there, nr. Jeff posted a picture I took on this very blog.
Cain just said he supports collective bargaining for public unions. Multiple times.
I what to hear the other candidates views on public unions. My assumptions are wildly off.
I mean, if the rest feel the same way, Cain is right back up there, and I’ll be very sad.
I’m not sure that you couldn’t even find video of Walker saying something similar, Lee.
But, part of the fun of being the outsider candidate is that you’re supposed to be able to say true things like “collective bargaining by public unions is inherently wrong and the primary reason all these states are in a fiscal death spiral.”
Hope he gives it some thought and changes his mind on this.
I support outlawing public sector unions straight up, on the grounds of fundamental conflict with the people’s business, let alone their alliance with a political party for the sake of their selfish interests.
“Hope he gives it some thought and changes his mind on this.”
Amen with hosanna’s.
Okay, time for football.
Later, fellas.
It seems to me as though limiting the grant to collective bargain to a catastrophe, bankrupting the state, goes well beyond a more rational set of objectives, namely achieving a competitive market for labor within government. Government is far too monopolistic in too many other respects already, and necessarily so in some. Don’t we need to introduce competition wherever possible, if we’re ever to see a government become first, more responsive to the public weal, and second, more efficient at the tasks the public assigns it?
i’m in the bachmann,cain,perry,santorum camp. the mbm, romney, baracky are the opposition. give me 53 seconds of perry mind farts to the 57 states of baracky stan stan stan.
For me the number one problem is the automatic deduction of union dues. Number two would be what can be collectively bargainer, wages ok, benefits are the killer when bargained.
no.1 prob is that the “public” is a monopoly and their workers become another monopoly.
Number one problem is that there is no table, with representatives of the taxpayers on one side and the unions on the other.
“i’m in the bachmann,cain,perry,santorum camp.:
What about camp newter? (Or is camp a description one associates with something a bit more stationary;)
mr. newt has been “leading from behind” newt’s got a speaker and a vp. baracky,boehner,pelosi,reid,biden hardest hit.
“What about camp newter?”
yea the iowa thing is close at hand. the “not romney faction” has to pick their candidate. mr. newt threads the needle.{warning idle speculation}. speaker of the house bachmann.
I don’t personally have a problem with this. What I’d have a problem with is forcing all sides to come to the bargaining table. I think it’s just fine for a state to refuse to bargain collectively, but not so good for a state to outlaw collective bargaining.
Because it infringes on freedom, if you do that. IMHO, of course.
If it infringes on freedom, then would you be content to let collective bargainers compete in the labor market for individuals bidding their own labor prices and let the best deal win Slart? I could live with that, but I doubt the collective bargainers would be all that satisfied.
I meant to say compete in the labor market with individuals etc.
Sure! Because to do otherwise would kind of infringe on some people’s freedom, no?
Mais oui. Still, I don’t see how the demos ordering its government against collective bargaining, in light of the absence of any rationale necessitating collective bargaining against the government (as though the government is in the business of cheating collective bargainers out of something due them) inhibits freedom in any serious sense.
All in all, I can see destroying public unions as a complete good thing without even squinting. The Daniels approach, in other words. Taking away automatic dues and getting rid of some aspects of collective bargaining are functional equivalents, they’re the Walker and attempted Kasich approach.
One makes the clearest possible case to the electorate and the other shields us from some of the repercussions.
Not sure there’s a functionally correct answer here because both can end up killing the public unions. From there I suppose we go to moral arguments about good governance.
(Packers!)
Making inferior teams play the Packers infringes on freedom, no question about it.
I clearly reversed that summation, by the way.
I consider it an implicit good to destroy public unions (as they function currently, not their ability to freely assemble as some sort of stupid guild or bowling team or something). That’s an obvious thing, right? They assemble to exclude others from the workforce. That’s their reason for existence when all else is stripped away. So… the People (intentional capitalization) should then rationally assemble by means of their first order right to self-governance to exclude those excluders from the public workforce. Is that a properly attended to foundational argument? Feels like it.
So, moral argument about good governance first, then functional arguments. Check and check.
JPod worries, the sky is falling because the Party is weak.
Political things are in turmoil all right, but it doesn’t seem to me so much a matter of the (or a) Party being weak as a case of the reigning political order — mostly embodied in Progressive theory — as crumbling under the weight of its own contradictions. The US is at a crossroad, and is faced with a choice that rarely comes to light or confronts us quite so starkly. And to make the whole situation more complex, we have to face the choice in a state of ignorance caused in part by the very inadequacies of the reigning politic order itself, namely, the poverty of the political education the vast majority of us have received (or acquired, however that may be). We simply aren’t fitted for the task, in the main.
We will always be fitted to the task at a certain level.
When mobs are threatening harm Hobbes will once again crystallize perfectly like an enormous high definition television showing a replay. We will no longer wonder where rights come from or how they might be maintained. First in our perception and then in our very bones.
If it stops short of that? Perhaps a sufficient number will once more sense it and then express it eloquently enough to suffice.
It’s worked before.
NRO The Corner on Cain’s answers.
Except that telling people what they may and may not do is kind of freedom-infringing.
That might not be what you had in mind, though. I’d generally agree with a statement that says that the government could legitimately refuse to deal with any collective-bargaining attempts, which refusal may or may not tend to make said unions as useful as male nipples, if that’s where you were headed.
But people have chosen to continue associating with ineffectual organizations; they do it all the time. Look at how effective the Republican Party is, these days.
[/wouldn’t belong to any club that would have me as a member]
Telling people they may not engage in acts which demonstrably harm the rest of the populace is not freedom-infringing. You may neither crap in the water tower nor conspire to commit extortion.
Without disagreeing with you, Crawford, it IS possible to have unions that refrain from those kinds of activities.
Theoretically.
I’m applying for a research grant to search the cosmos for evidence that’s ever happened, Slart. Want in?
Now you’re speaking to probabilities, McGehee. I’m not even sure how to attack that one.
I’m thinking we’ll have to coordinate researchers all over the place. Cancun. Tahiti. Aspen.
We’ll need huge travel allowances.
Not to mention young, nubile research interns with huge travel allowances.
And team-building retreats where we can play trust-building games like “Hide the Decline.”