In my previous column advocating Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination for President, I stressed his strength both as an economic conservative and a brilliant debater and explainer of conservative ideas. Here, I will cover his strengths in other issues important to conservatives.
In a previous column The Problem with Libertarianism, I stress the importance of all three “legs” of the Conservative “stool”:
1. Pro-life, pro-family, supporter of traditional morality.
2. Free market, small government, low tax rates.
3. Strong national defense.
These “legs” are all necessary to support the stool. When any one of them collapse, the others follow. Indeed, as shown in the article, the legs all support each other as well, so an even stronger analogy is a three-legged stool with reinforcing trusses between each pair of legs. Here we will consider #1 and #3; see the previous column for #2.
I’ve pointed out before, if there is no right to life, then no other right matters. Newt received a 98.6% lifetime rating from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) over his 20 years in Congress, including four years as Speaker. That means that Newt aligned with the NLRC 70 out of 71 times. Especially when contrasted with the infanticide-supporting abortion-extremist currently in the White House, it’s vital to see that the glass is 98.6% full rather than 1.4% empty. Furthermore, Newt’s solitary vote contrary to the NRLC’s position was over an aspect of welfare reform, which the NRLC wrongly thought made it more likely for unmarried mothers to seek abortions.
Furthermore, Newt realizes that the holocaust against the unborn has been advanced most by the courts. He is the one candidate who’s serious about appointing constitutionalist judges rather than leftist pseudo-legislators. This is one of the most important of all Presidential functions yet it’s rarely mentioned, because the judges have great influence for decades after the President leaves office. Conversely, when Romney had his chance as Massachusetts governor, the Boston Globe reported:
“Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats.”
Gingrich would also re-instate Reagan’s “Mexico City Policy” that prohibits federal funding for overseas abortions, and forbid any healthcare organizations from forcing staffers to perform abortions. He would also cut off funding to the abortion and sex-trafficking business Planned Parenthood, founded by the racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger to eliminate what she called “human weeds,” including black people.
This is one area largely neglected by conservatives, yet it could be one of the most important of all. Far too many send their kids to the government schools, staffed by members of the fanatically Democrat teachers unions. Then every generation, we are surprised at how the Dems win the youth vote. It was so bad last time that even the professing evangelical Christian segment of the under-30s voted for Obama. And this was despite his abortion extremism, support for infanticide and homosexual behavior.
But my only surprise is why conservative parents are surprised. After all, if you send your kids to Caesar, don’t be surprised if they return as Romans. And the very fact of sending kids to government schools implicitly concedes that government knows best. Why should we be surprised that if the kids unconsciously reason that if Big Government is best for education, then it might be good for everything else.
A better educational system would deprive the Dems of a vital voting bloc. And one reason they have this bloc is that parents are denied the right to choose their schools, unless they are very rich. And even those parents who choose alternative schooling are still funding the Democrat government schools with their taxes.
Gingrich proposes to fund the pupils directly, and if the schools want any of this funding, they will need to attract them, by convincing parents that they are right for their children. In this country, so many good things have been produced by companies competing with each other for our business. So it’s bizarre that in the “Land of the Free”, one of the most important products of all, our children’s education, is provided by a system more like the Soviet Union used to provide goods (I’ve been there before it collapsed, and saw first-hand the long lines, poor quality products, and surly service).
Newt would also protect the rights of home-schooled children, whose parents also pay taxes after all.
Patriotism and strong defense
I’ve already explained why Gingrich is right and Paul is wrong about the need to defend ourselves against terrorists and Iranian nukes. This was reinforced in the recent SC debate, as shown by the following:
Paul: “My point is, that if another country does to us what we do to others, we aren’t going to like it very much. So I would say maybe we ought to consider a golden rule in foreign policy,” Paul said as the crowd laughed and jeered. “We endlessly bomb these other countries and then we wonder why they get upset with us?”
A number of Paul supporters have slanderously accused the conservative and largely Christian audience of “booing the Golden rule.” No, they were booing his disgracefully unpatriotic “Blame-America-First” attitude, and his insinuation that our country has violated this rule. Conversely, Gingrich received a standing ovation for:
“Bin Laden plotted deliberately bombing American embassies, bombing the U.S.S. cole, and killing 3,100 people on September 11th. … Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear cut about America’s enemies: kill them.”
Also on state level, Gingrich supports State rights to defend their borders against illegal immigrants. In particular, on his first day as President, he would issue a number of executive orders, including:
“Instruct the Attorney General to withdraw all immigration-related lawsuits against states immediately, including those pending in Arizona and South Carolina. The Obama Administration refuses to enforce federal immigration laws, and instead sues states who are merely trying to enforce the laws that the federal government neglects.”
And not only does Newt support a strong national defense, he supports a strong personal defense. America, right from its founding, has protected the right to self-defense. Instead, leftists want to reduce gun crime by disarming law-abiding criminals. This is like controlling drunk driving by confiscating all cars. To see where this leads—more crime as citizens are deprived of their means of self-defence—just look at the UK (see The Gold Standard of Gun Control: The English Experience).
In the current administration, Obama’s hand-picked Attorney General, the racist Eric Holder, launched the corrupt “Fast and Furious” operation to try to set up gun stores for vexatious lawsuits. Good men died, and to his credit, Ron Paul has demanded that Holder be fired and criminal charges brought against him.
But Gingrich is a long-time friend of the NRA, received an A or A+ rating throughout his two decades in congress, and received their Defender of the Second Amendment award in 2010.
While Newt wasn’t my first choice, in my view, he is the best of the remainder by a fair margin. While my previous column stressed his record as an economic conservative, he could well be the best on social conservatism and national security conservatism since Reagan. Patriots must do everything they can to get the current America-hating incumbent of the White House, and take our country back. They could do far worse than President Gingrich.