Newt Gingrich — The GOP Fault Line

by Robert Arvay

The Republican Party is divided.  There are actually now TWO Republican Parties, loosely united under one brand name, and loosely united by a common enemy, the Democrats.
But that supposed unity is fragile.  
Newt Gingrich demonstrated that the other day in his denunciation of Paul Ryan’s alternative to Obama-Care.  And even though Newt apologized, there is little doubt that a very great many old guard Republicans agree with him that we should “go easy” (my words, not Newt’s) in opposing Obama’s ruinous policies.
Newt’s rejection of Paul Ryan’s plan is a warning signal.  In order to understand how deep the division is in the Republican Party, let’s go back a few months to the election in New York congressional district 23.  
In that election, the Republican Bosses nominated Dede Scozzofava, a liberal Republican who was the favorite of the old guard Republicans, and also the favorite of Newt Gingrich, who publicly supported her.  
Scozzofava was opposed not only by a Democrat, but also by a Conservative Party candidate who was vastly more popular among the voters than was Scozzofava.  The stupidity of the Republican Party bosses, and of Gingrich, was revealed when Scozzofava threw her minority support to the DEMOCRAT, who then won the general election.  Scozzofava defined what we mean by the pejorative term, RINO, Republican In Name Only.
After that fiasco, Newt Gingrich admitted his obvious mistake.  But did he truly learn from it?  It seems not.  His opposition to the Ryan plan is almost a repeat of his thinking in the NY23 blunder.  Once again, Gingrich is running away from taking a strong, principled conservative stand, in favor of what he THINKS is a smart strategy on technical political grounds.
Newt THINKS that strong conservative principles cannot win elections.  Worse yet, he thinks that the republic can survive without embracing those strong conservative principles.  It can’t.  The Democrats have inflicted more damage on the nation than can be repaired by any RINO bandaid.  We may not yet need radical surgery, but even so, we must— we absolutely must— go cold turkey on our national addiction to deficit spending and reckless borrowing.  Half measures will no longer suffice.
But there are dangers to going cold turkey.
The danger is that it may result in a divided Republican party.  The risk involved in that, is that it can split the national vote into a 30-30-40 victory for the Democrats.  Even though the Republican vote would be 30+30 for a 60 point majority, the 40 percent vote for the Democrats would give them the electoral landslide, the Congress, and the White House.
That is a serious risk, but also, it is a risk that we MUST take.  Because, if the Republican Party caves in on principle, if it supports the ruinous policies of the left, then not only does the ship of state sink, but it sinks in a way that is blamed on the Republicans, leaving no hope that in a future election, the nation will turn to conservatives for help.  Why would they?
Republicans must repudiate Gingrich-ism.  We must reject RINO-ism.  Compromise on technique is sometimes necessary to accomplish a principled goal.  But once we compromise on the goal itself, we are doomed to failure.  There can be no retreat from principle, if we are to survive as a nation.
The republic has but one viable alternative, both to the ruinous policies of Obama, and to those who would seek to “make nice” with him.  And that alternative is to stand strong, to move forward with resolve.  Only two prominent Republicans at present seem adequate to fit that bill, and both of them are women.
If the Republican national convention does not nominate a Palin/Bachmann ticket for the White House, then the Republican Party might as well rename itself, the Almost Democrat Party.  
Newt Gingrich, in a backhanded way, has done us a favor.  He has drawn the line.  Now it is up to us to decide on which side of it to stand. 

3 thoughts on “Newt Gingrich — The GOP Fault Line

  1. The left becomes the right and the right becomes the left for sure in America when it comes to the old guard on both sides of the aisle. Gingritch is just that – old guard and you are dead right in this article Robert. I can see this from my side of the border and it really gets my goat to know that Americans just do not understand that both parties – at some point – merged. You cannot afford more of the same.

  2. Why does it seem like I am the only one that seems to understand what Newt was trying to say about the Ryan budget, which he has publicly supported. The only problem Newt had with the Budget proposal was that we should be careful not to try to take the same mistakes that the spending Liberals are making in trying to construct society into their image. The freedoms that are afforded by the Constitution are still relevant no matter what fiscal approach we make. By "Social Engineering," Newt meant we can not go to the extreme as to become the enemy of the left but we can become fiscally responsible without forcing our social agenda on the public like the left has done for years. Some freedoms must remain intact no matter who sets fiscal policy. It was this concept that was the only thing that Newt disagreed with and not the Ryan Budget as a whole. He has supported the fiscal responsibility that the Budget instills but was just warning that we don't become the mirror image of the Liberal agenda which would be fought tooth and nail just as we fight the Liberal agenda.I am the first one to admit that Newt often speaks as if people assume where he is coming from because to me his statement made perfect sense. If we are to win the minds of mainstream America, we cannot become the enemy of the supporters of the Liberal agenda but the conscience and superior alternative to extreme left wing ideals which aren't ideals at all but a joust for power at any cost. The fact that Liberals live such inconsistent lives is obvious when you break their positions down and separate them such as the simple statement "Pro-Choice and forced Government schooling" portrays.We, as Conservatives, need to make our arguments better. It seems we just have a bunch of loose cannons shooting each other in the foot in order to control the rhetoric and the battle for the Conservative name. This is a battle we have lost a long time ago and we are on an up hill battle to portray Conservative values as not only what the Constitution provided but that they provided them for the good of the nation and not always the individual. We have all created this monster we now call the Government and it is time to stop feeding it. The Government has become obese and is now barely viable except to extract more and more from its people to continue to survive. I believe it is time for the Government to be taken off life support except for the purpose it was formed to do. Protect the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Protect its citizens from oppression and not be the oppression. The states must retrieve the responsibilities meant for them before they were devoured by the growing beast.So, what is the solution to this obese Government. It must be stripped from its overreaching power to herd the sheep. I envision a nation in which the US Government simply provides for the common defense of this nation and the states become more individual so people of like minded thinking can settle where they wish. In the state that is patterned after what they believe. This may mean having to vehemently disagree with a neighboring state but as long as they hold up their end of the moral and societal contract then we can all live in the relative belief that our nation must survive in unity but live in freedom.At the rate we are going now, this Government will soon die from the inability to proceed for the common good of all its citizens. We can see already that with the divided powers of the House and Senate that nothing positive can be done. And with a President that sees the Constitution as a suggestion and not the will of the people, then we cease to be the Republic we were designed to be. I suggest if you look around the corner, a not so familiar foe is waiting to pounce on this nation. Its name? Anarchy!! This is the only logical step for a government that serves itself more than it serves its citizens.

  3. Scott, you pretty much answer your own question. Newt was indeed addressing a narrow topic, and was misunderstood. I am neither a genius nor an idiot, but if I, someone who admires Gingrich's intellect and his defense of Sarah Palin at the RNC nominating convention— if I misunderstood him, that speaks to his ability to communicate with the ordinary voter. And even when he is correctly understood, his choice of words was unfortunate. He seemed to be ingratiating himself with the Left. Taking that in context with the Scozzofava fiasco— which Gingrich admitted was such— it caused many raised eyebrows. Indeed, there is still some room to question Gingrich on this matter. While one can certainly agree that budgets should be confined to sound fiscal policy, there is no avoiding the fact that anything so massive as the federal budget, will impact society in many ways, including its cultural values. And culture is not just a matter of opinion and preference. As Gingrich himself pointed out in his book, "To Renew America," a nation's very survival depends on its culture and morals. He said, "For the past thirty years, we have been influenced to abandon our culture and… the core values… of our civilization." A few pages later, he wrote, "No civilization can survive for long with twelve-year-olds having babies…."So Gingrich is well aware that national survival relies on the twin pillars of written laws, and unwritten values, and that each of these interacts with the other.As conservatives, we must become a party not merely of "accountants," as Brit Hume recently warned. We must also equip a new generation with something the Bible calls the full suit of armor, that is, a coherent and sensible set of moral values, values which the political Left has effectively disemboweled from much of our culture.Gingrich knows that. It was that aspect of his misunderstood statement that he should have made more clear to his listeners. Newt— I beg you— do not fear to be identified as a culture warrior. We need both pillars of a strong society.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s