Gingrich - Is He Our Man?

Several entries ago, when former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was languishing in the polls, I explained why, reluctantly, Conservatives should support Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee.

Has the recent “Newt surge” caused me to change my mind?  No.

Gingrich surely tells us what we want to hear.  He offers red meat to a ravenous crowd.  He expresses conservative ideas boldly and succinctly while Romney often fumbles when given the opportunity.  And best of all – and most exciting – he attacks President Obama with gusto; he draws blood.  We envision that with him as the nominee, the vaunted public speaker in the White House will meet more than his match in next fall’s debates.

Newt Gingrich makes conservatives feel good.  That’s also true for Ron Paul.  We know his free market views are dead on.  But his foreign policy perspective follows that of the left around the world; he’s dead wrong. 

Feel good?  Don’t all of us (forget politics) enjoy that sensation?  It is a strong motivation indeed.

Since Conservatism dominates the Republican Party, Gingrich’s appeal may win him the nomination.  But that’s not exactly tantamount to a pass to the Presidency.

Emotions usually trump contrary intellectual judgment… until the passion subsides.

Polls have consistently shown Mitt Romney to be a more popular general election candidate than the former House Speaker.

Is electability to be ignored?  In 2010, GOP voters in Nevada and Delaware chose Senatorial nominees who were more fervently conservative than their more “moderate” (but generally more appealing) primary opponents.  Both lost in an otherwise big GOP year.

Do we want to beat Barack Obama or is “feeling good” about his opponent more important?

Tax the Rich More? Is that Fair?

President Barack Obama proclaims that the rich should pay their “fair” share of taxes.  Hence, he advocates higher taxes on those making over a million dollars annually.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid backs that call and introduces legislation for a nearly 6% tax hike for the “one percent.”

But what is meant by fairness as the term is employed by liberals and their media friends?

According to a report by the Congressional Budget Office a few years ago, the top 1% of income earners paid over 28% of all Federal Taxes.  And their average tax rate was about 30%.  (Approximately half of all Americans paid no income tax.) 

If we define fairness as equal treatment, maybe the one percent are the victims, not the so-called 99%!

Of course, perhaps when using the term “fair”, equal treatment is not at all what is meant by the critics of the rich.

If one believes in equality of results, something else entirely is meant by “fairness.”  By that standard something is very wrong – unfair – when so few have so much.

It is true that the Administration might be – as GOP spokesmen claim – using the “tax the rich rhetoric” as a political ploy.  There are far more non-rich voters than the other variety, after all.

I suggest that more than cynicism is involved.  Isn’t a tendency toward leveling results, rather than opportunity, a common feature of liberal philosophy?  It is hardly incidental that proclaimed socialist governments in the world have imposed confiscatory tax rates above income levels deemed to be “too much.”

The appeal of such policies to human nature’s less appealing aspects (envy and jealousy in particular) is undeniable.

But if America is to hold on to what opportunity still exists in this land, egalitarianism’s siren call must be resisted. 

Otherwise, a positive aspect of human nature will be suppressed: initiative.

Taxes discourage it.  Without it, businesses are not formed, workers are not hired and taxes are not paid.

Is that the cost of liberal “fairness” America should pay?

Diversity of What? And Why?

One hears the term a lot as a desirable objective in workplaces and on college campuses.

But what does that term mean as used by its proponents?  Different economic backgrounds?  Geographical locations?  Cultures?  Religious experiences?  Languages?  Or is it race?

And why is diversity a value to be sought?

Prior to a Supreme Court decision in 1978 (Bakke v. Univ. of Michigan), colleges used an applicant’s minority race as a primary factor in determining admission under a policy known as affirmative action.  Since then, the race of an applicant has supposedly been far less important in the college admission process.  However, I suggest that it should have no role to play.

Differences in a student population certainly can contribute to what is an educational opportunity by exposing members to unfamiliar ideas and perspectives that are the product of different backgrounds and experiences.  That is diversity that matters.  What does color have to do with it?

The truth is that the politically correct usage amounts to “affirmative action” by another name.

What about the work place?  Unlike a college setting, diversity doesn’t even have the cover of being an educational virtue.

The only value in the workplace hiring policy should be competence.  Does the applicant have the skill and temperament to perform the job?  What do differences of any sort have to do with that?

Ah, irony.  In 1963, Martin Luther King, a paragon in liberal mythology, expressed his deeply-held hope during his Washington Mall speech:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

So what happened?

Why Does Government Require You to Wear a Seat Belt?

That’s easy.  Because it’s for your own good.  I mean, after all, if you are in a serious collision, traffic studies make clear, you are more likely to avoid injury or death if you are belted.

But what if, for whatever reason, you don’t like to use them and respond “I’ll take my chances!”

And that is a very good point.  Because what, after all, should be the role of government?  Is it to provide an orderly, civilized setting in which a nation’s citizens can live and hopefully prosper?  Or is it to look after you as a nanny does a child?

The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution explained that its purpose was “to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility,  provide for the common defense, promote the generale Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

So how did we get from there to mandatory helmets for motorcycle riders, seatbelts for all and health insurance for those who don’t want it?

Because over many decades a view among our political leaders has become increasingly prevalent (aided greatly by the liberal academy): individuals can’t be trusted to make proper decisions for their own welfare.  And when they inevitably make a bad decision, others also pay a price.  Thus forcing people to do the “right” thing is in everyone’s best interest.  So what’s wrong with that?  If one wants to protect individual liberty, everything.

This is not to suggest that society should have no role in dictating the conduct of its members.  Requiring a four year old child to be transported safely in a safety seat should be unobjectionable.  Isn’t a child properly considered to be (usually) deficient in judgment and maturity in comparison with (most) adults? 

But can a nation long remain free if the government plays the role of nanny for adults, too?

Take motorcycle helmets.  I don’t doubt that if a rider falls off and hits the road, his head will fare better if he has one on.  And proponents of requiring that they be worn are undoubtedly right that minimizing head injuries reduces demands on the health care system, and this is an economic plus.  But is reduction of risk the only concern to be considered?  Why permit motorcycle riding at all?  A head encased in plastic, feet in boots and legs and torso in leather clothing is not exactly comparable protection to airbags and surrounding steel.

Of course, there is a broader cost involved when the choice turns out to be a bad one.  For example, if you want to do mountain climbing, you might get stranded atop a snowy peak and require rescue at public expense.  Do we ban mountain climbing because of the risk of public expenditure?  Or do we acknowledge that the exercise of freedom, like not wearing a helmet, involves potential cost?

Freedom for individuals means the right to make choices.    Fundamentally, we have to choose between values. 

To the extent that a reduction in risk is required, so too is liberty restricted.

A risk-free society would be a safe one, but it would hardly be free.