21May/10Off
Newt Defends His Controversial Comments
Newt Gingrich's latest book, To Save America, has taken predictable flack from the mainstream media and liberal Democrats everywhere. Here is part of the interview he gave on Fox News Sunday last weekend, in defense of his claim that the modern secular-progressive Left (typified by the current Obama-Pelosi-Reid leadership in Washington D.C.) poses as great a threat to the traditional American way of life as did our foreign enemies of the past century.
I have ordered Speaker Gingrich's book and will be writing up a short review on it at some point in the next few weeks.
RJ's Social Network
Read RJ’s Columns/Blogs
What is “Mere Conservatism”?
Video of RJ
RJ Speaking at Acton 2010
Rudy the Dog barks at "change"
Rudy the Dog barks at "change"
Books You Need to Read
Wall Street Journal
Blogroll
- Acton Power Blog
- Big Government
- Big Hollywood
- Black and Red
- Conservative Daily Blog
- Dad's blog
- Dennis Prager (The Master)
- Desiring God (John Piper)
- Doug Giles (Clash Radio)
- Education News
- Hugh Hewitt
- Jihad Watch
- Mere Orthodoxy
- Michael Medved
- Milton Friedman
- Mom's blog
- My LOST blog
- Only Good Movies
- Patriots Corner
- Remnant Culture
- Shot In The Dark
- Stiletto Blog
- Subscribe via RSS
- The Straight Hype
- Twitter Me
Columnists You Need to Read
- Ann Coulter
- Charles Krauthammer
- Christopher Hitchens
- George Will
- Jonah Goldberg
- Karl Rove
- Mark Steyn
- Marvin Olasky
- Thomas Sowell
- Tony Blankley
- Walter E. Williams
Music/Entertainment
News/Politics
- Drudge Report
- Fact Check
- Fox News
- Hot Air
- Jerusalem Post
- National Review
- Real Clear Politics
- Townhall
- Washington Times
- Weekly Standard
May 25th, 2010 - 15:09
I’ve seen this interview many times and I still do not agree that this is the kind of rhetoric that we need to be using if we want to win over voters. Americans know who the Nazis and Soviets were. The Nazis killed Americans. The Soviets vowed to bury us and did so by proxy. I haven’t mentioned the morality of the Nazis and Soviets because Mr. Gingrich claims that he isn’t talking about the morality of the groups. What he is saying, though, is unnecessarily absurd.
Couldn’t he, for example, have instead compared the Obama Administration to radical Islamists in terms of their impact on the American way of life? Wouldn’t that too be over the top?
Making reactionary comments like this (and defending them) makes us appear silly at a time when we need to be taken seriously. It also diverts attention away from some of the substance and seriousness of Newt and focuses instead on topics such as political tone, firebrand rhetoric and extremity in politics.
You mention that his book has taken “predictable” flack from the MSM and from liberal democrats. Is there no room for principled conservatives to disagree with Mr. Speaker?
Do you defend his rhetoric?
May 25th, 2010 - 16:40
I think anyone from any side can say what they want about Speaker Gingrich’s comments and book title. My point was that no mainstream media outlet has given his book the time of day, unless they are bashing him. That is predictable.
There are many examples Newt could’ve used, and I like the one you suggested. However, I have no problem with Gingrich making the comparison. As you accurately stated, he is not making a moral comparison to the atrocities of Nazism…but merely pointing out that the ideology (top-down socialism with a bent towards secularism) the modern progressive-liberal establishment espouses, promotes, and is ramming through congress is as antithetical to the traditional, Judeo-Christian, historical understanding of American values.
For those unfamiliar with what I’m alluding to, those values, as I understand them, are quickly and clearly explained by Dennis Prager here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn4IH3yng4k&feature=player_embedded
JTH, we agree that tone does matter, and that conservatives, Republicans, and libertarians need to be smart about their public comments and conduct if we are to have a chance of stopping the distinct move toward the Left in this country…and I completely respect your take on Newt’s comments…I just don’t happen to see any real problem with them. Are they controversial? Yes. Are they accurate? Yes. Could they have been put differently? Certainly. Is it that big of a deal, or some guarantor that the GOP will lose in November? Nope.
I want to be doing my part to help produce a generation of Americans who aren’t so shallow in their political thinking that they would not support a candidate, party, or movement because they didn’t like the tone of Newt’s book.
I don’t think the comments are silly and I don’t think explaining why they aren’t indefensible isn’t silly either. The problem is most people don’t read in general, and won’t have read this book, when they make their pronouncements about his comments. I plan on writing a review of the book when I’m finished with it. I’d love for you to read it to and maybe we can do a dual-review on our sites?
-R.J. Moeller
May 26th, 2010 - 17:55
Robby, you’re not being honest again. It’s a shame.
If you believe, as you’ve now stated, that it is true that the Obama Administration poses a similar threat to America as the Nazis and the Soviets, then I’d like an explanation why we aren’t talking about bloody revolution. Americans killed Nazis and Soviets for the threat that they posed to America. You’re saying (because Newt did) that the democratically elected president with an almost 50% approval rating should be compared to murderous Nazis and bloodthirsty Soviets?
This is so obviously silly, and frankly lazy. Just because Newt says it, doesn’t mean it’s Gospel!
Furthermore, it’s not shallow to avoid a movement because of its tone. Claiming otherwise is just pure condescension. By being active in the conservative movement (politically) we are saying that these people represent us. I do not want to be represented by reactionaries and egotistical blowhards. And it is up to me–and others who think like me–to speak up when counterproductive rhetoric enters the mainstream of the party. That is an integral part of modern conservatism post-fusionism. One of my conservative heroes, William F. Buckley, worked tirelessly to remove what he viewed as anti-Semetism from the Republican party. So don’t tell me that tone doesn’t matter, and that it won’t hurt us electorally. I know better than that, and so do you.
I’d be happy to read the book and perhaps we can talk about a dual review. Despite the controversy, I don’t think I will disagree with most of what I read in it.
I look forward to your future writings on this subject, and to the piece that you told me was forthcoming about your new opinion of the Arizona immigration law. Reading it made a big difference, I’m sure.
May 27th, 2010 - 15:24
How is Robby not being honest? He said he agrees with the premise of Newt’s comments. We are talking about a revolution, but a non-violent one. The ideology of the Left (not the people, per se) is so reprehensible to me that I (and it sounds like RJ as well) would do anything I could to get them out of office. Thankfully here in America we can speak our mind, gather in groups to form voting blocs, and force these morons out of office. I happen to agree with Newt’s comments as well. The same ideology that created the environment within which National Socialism could take hold (and someone like Hitler come to power) is happening before our very eyes on the Left. They might not mean it for such evil, but for Newt to point out the similarities is not beyond the pale. He’s in effect making many of the same arguments Jonah Goldberg does in Liberal Fascism.
I hope you both read the book and give us your take. Thanks for offering your perspective on these things Joseph.
May 28th, 2010 - 15:26
Jillian, I actually disagree with Newt’s claim partially because of a conversation that I had with Jonah Goldberg when he visited NU a few years ago. Goldberg said that American liberal fascism will not look the same as German fascism or fascism in other nations. That is exactly why I think it is ridiculous to compare the threat of American liberalism to that of Nazism or Soviet Communism.
Moreover, what I find so dishonest about Newt’s (and Robby’s by proxy) claim is that by calling the Obama administration a threat to this country equal to the Nazis and to the Soviets implies that action beyond voting is necessary. I made the absurd assertion that this administration is as dangerous as Islamic radicals and overtly called the claim absurd. Robby, instead, called it a valid claim. We have soldiers and agents of this nation killing and detaining Islamic radicals precisely because of the threat they pose to this nation. If this administration is an equal threat to America as Islamists, Nazis and Soviets, and we killed them for threatening us so, why isn’t bloody rebellion a serious topic of conversation in dealing with the American left? The answer is so painfully obvious that it makes fools of people who believe what Newt says. (By the way, I don’t even think Newt believes it himself. I think he’s doing this to attract attention.) The painfully obvious answer is: the Obama administration does NOT pose an equal threat to this nation as Nazism or Soviet Communism.
I can’t stand liberalism and I devote a pretty large part of my life fighting it wherever I see it. But if we agree, as I’m sure we do, that the best way to defeat liberalism is to vote liberals out of office and defeat their ideas, then we have to use arguments that will help us do so. Saying that liberals are like Nazis and Soviets will only unite them against a reactionary enemy. Worse yet, it makes independents (the deciding factors in every single election) regard us as desperate, un-serious lunatics who should be kept as far away from power as necessary. That spells defeat for us and the nation.
If we support reactionary claims then we will scare people away from the substance of our message–one that is beautiful and empowering. To do so, we need to be on record speaking out against inaccurate rhetoric even if it comes from people we admire.
Thank you for the challenge, Jillian, and for giving me the opportunity to explain myself further.
May 29th, 2010 - 08:34
I think Robby was kidding about the Islamist comparison, but I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Without knowing either of you personally, it does still sound like the two of you are completely on the same page in everything except one of you does not like what Newt said and one does.
May 31st, 2010 - 15:05
Jillian,
Perhaps you’re right about Robby kidding about the Islamist comparison. I have no clue how it reads as a joke, but he has told me personally that he was kidding about it. What he wasn’t kidding about was validity of Newt’s claim–a claim that is no laughing matter.
Robby and I do fight for the same movement but in somewhat different arenas. My focus is on developing good policy. Robby is more interested in messaging. Each of us relies on the other. If I (not me, in particular, but policy wonks) advance bad policy, then it will affect people in negative ways and they will shy from the political conservative movement. If Robby (and other messengers) support bad messaging, then people will react badly to political conservatism. I think he and Newt are wrong on the messaging when they make overwrought claims. And I am sure that it is detrimental to the cause.