Newt Gingrich is our best chance

by oracleofreason

In Eastern and Western philosophy there are two forces usually at work against one another which (it is assumed) helps bring balance to the world. In Asian philosophy it is the conflict between Yin and Yang. In Chrisitianity the conflict is between the ideas of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo while in secular philosophy the conflict is between the outlook of Aristotle and Plato.

In her book The Future and it’s Enemnies, Virginia Postrel outlines the confict between the dynamists and the stasists. Dynamists embace a world of choice and competition which includes economic prosperity, technological progress and cultural innovation. Stasists, on the other hand, envision a society that upholds the status quo, while embacing the values of a simpler past and authoritarian rule.

The Republican race has boiled down to 4 people. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul fall into the dynamist category while Romney and Santorum are stasists. Gingrich and Paul embrace a positive future of economic progress and spontaneous order where individuals are free to pursue their own course of happiness. Out of the two Paul fails miserably in the realm of foreign policy and the roots of Islamic terror by wrongly blaming U.S. military and clandestine activities in the Middle East as being the cause of events like September 11, 2001. Gingrich has not only (rightly) taken Paul to task for his idiocy but supported and defended free and open markets in his speeches and statements, he has boldly defended Israel, condemned radical Islam along with speaking the truth about Sharia Law. He has been uncompromisingly hawkish asserting the best and only methods to deal with Islamic terrorism and regimes that support it (like Iran) is to use military force against the enemy to ensure our survival.

The fact remains that Western civilization is embroiled in a struggle for it’s very survival against enemies (Islam and the left) openly hostile to secularism and capitalism along with the freedoms open societies embrace. Israel, for example, is surrounded by theocratic dictatorships, and groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah and their leftists allies work diligently to undermine her in the court of public opinion. Their delegitimization campaign is only part of an effort that will result in a second Holocaust of the country’s Jewish population while obliterating the only country in the Middle East that is a prosperous, secular island of sanity which makes Islamist countries look bad. With Israel gone it will give Islamists will have less of a hurdle to convince their followers to join them in their quest to destroy Western infidels since by doing will have a far off faceless enemy to demonize.

It is a mistake to elect candidates who will appease our enemies or embrace semblances of pragmatism or altruism since they will not adequately defend the values that have made America and Western civilization great. Romney and Santorum are both stasists in that they both embrace subjecting the individual to the collective will. Romney demonstrates this in the form of his pragmatism. As Governor of Massachusetts Romney supported tax increases, increased gun restrictions and additional economic controls while Santorum reels against American individualism using his faith as the centerpiece of his campaign. Santorum rationalizes prohibitions on personal individual choice such as supporting restrictions on abortion and opposition to stem cell research and sees capitalism as a means to an end out of altruistic sacrifice.

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul both favor socially conservative policies but these are not the main focus of their campaigns. The fact that Ron Paul will not admit that he signed off on the racist and anti-Semitic newsletters that bare his name and his blame America first mantra in the realm of foreign policy automatically disqualifies him in my mind. I also question the libertarian label he is given. While his stance on the drug war, spending and income tax are notable while serving in Congress on many occasions he sought to remove federal court jurisdiction to hear abortion and gay marriage cases. If Paul is a libertarian he would not seek to remove an individual’s ability to seek redress in federal courts from state-level liberty-violating laws. Newt Gingrich has a worldview much broader than Paul’s. His recent support of states (like Washington) legalizing gay marriage by referendum or via state legislatures rather than by court decision shows he is respects individual liberty even though he may disagree with someone’s personal conduct.

Newt has the backbone, know-how, and wisdom to actually reverse the policies enacted by Barack Obama (another stasist) and adequately debate and take the President to task on the campaign trail. None of the allegations brought against him regarding his former marriages and his activities as Speaker have been able to stick because Gingrich has openly and honestly addressed them. I would have liked to have seen Texas Governor Rick Perry get the G.O.P. nomination, but he did miserably in Republican debates and his campaign fell apart at the seams over time. Fortunately, Perry endorsed Gingrich and I am glad that all of my preconceived notions about Gingrich have been proven unfounded. Two other individuals I like (Sarah Palin and Herman Cain) have endorsed Newt as well which hopefully means the influence of the Tea Party in Republican politics will continue for quite sometime.

I proudly voted for Newt Gingrich during the Arizona Primary on February 28th and urge you to do so in your state’s primary as well. With Super Tuesday over, unfortunately there isn’t a clear front runner. Mitt Romney’s recent wins are the result of a scorched Earth policy of outspending his opponents and negative campaigning. This is not a good strategy for the General Election should he go head-to-head with Obama since the demographics of such a contest radically change making it harder for Romney to adapt.

Each candidate must be measured not just how they will perform in the White House but also how well they will be able to undermine Obama in the debates and at the polls. If given the Republican nomination during the General Election the candidate must also play the role of a Paul Revere to alert voters as to what is at stake should Obama be re-elected. If The Annointed One is given a second term as a Lame Duck President any restraints Obama put on himself before and after the shellacking he took in 2010 will come off as he will reveal himself as the true communist that he is.

Newt Gingrich is an honest, principled, and articulate candidate and is best equipped not only to undo the damage done by Obama if elected but also adequately take the President to task in debates. He has a very good record of accomplishment of balancing budgets while Speaker of the House including party building in Georgia and nationally that the G.O.P. would benefit from along with a breadth of knowledge that would make Thomas Jefferson proud. Newt wants to liberate the country and not necessarily rule it. Gingrich operates along the lines of Ayn Rand’s principles and is a man of action. It will take a dynamist to defeat a stasist at the polls and Gingrich offers the best chance to not only defeat Obama but restore America as a dynamist haven once again.