Tuesday - September 05, 2006

Not Newt

Robert Tracinski at The Intellectual Activist takes a look at someone who has been on my radar screen recently as a rising (again?) power in Conservative circles ... Newt Gingrich. Newt seems to be making a comeback with a new book and appearances on all the major talk radio and news shows.

At the same time he quite unexpectedly joined Hillary Clinton (Yargh!) in promoting universal health care. Either my eyes and ears have slipped a gear or Ol’ Newt is gaming the system by sucking up to all sides at once ... in the style of Slick Willie Clinton.

Now he is becoming what I call a chickenhawk. “I say, I say - pay attention here, boy - I’m talking to you” (Foghorn Leghorn) by promoting the war on terrorism but ruling out any military action against the worst threat in the region - Iran. I just don’t know what to make of Ol’ Newt nowadays. I do know that the last time we put someone from Georgia in charge, we got screwed miserably. Say it ain’t so, Newt ... !

Why We Can’t Rely on Newt Gingrich

For the past few months, former Speaker of tthe House Newt Gingrich has positioned himself as a kind of spokesman for the “hawks” on the right, arguing that the current conflict should be regarded as “World War III” and advocating confrontation with Iran. But I have been uncomfortable with Gingrich’s war advocacy, partly because I remember all too well his record as the Republican leader in Congress.

In a book he wrote back in the 1990s, Gingrich explained his basic philosophical outlook, which was an unprincipled, unserious Pragmatism. History, he believes, is a series of disconnected crises and challenges, each requiring a new solution—which could only be provided if a visionary leader stepped up to provide bold action. But the crucial thing is the personal qualities of the leader, not the ideas or principles for which he stands.

This explains the one thing that most bothers me about Gingrich. Every campaign he takes up is not actually about the challenges we face in the world and the actions we need to take; they are about cultivating his self-image as a bold leader. Following his view of history, he wants to be seen as the visionary who steps forward to solve the great problems of the day—but what that problem is, or how we should solve it, is of secondary interest.

And that’s why Gingrich has a tendency to be ineffective as a leader. Every issue is really about him and the role he wants to play—but as for the specific ideas that he champions, it always seems a bit as if he is just playing with those ideas and not really taking them seriously. With his talk about World War III, for example, I have always had the feeling that he is role-playing at being Winston Churchill, not that he has a strong, first-hand grasp of the conflict with Iran.

Sadly, it looks like my low expectations are being met. At a conference for conservative leaders, Gingrich couldn’t resist a little grand-standing publicity seeking—and in the process, he declared that he is against taking military action against Iran. This is accurately described, by the conservative blogger quoted below, as a “fence-straddling” position between military action and the weak diplomacy of Condoleezza Rice.

Newt Gingrich has helped to put the confrontation with Iran at the top of America’s political agenda. But his audition for the role of Winston Churchill is now officially over.

“Gingrich’s Iran Straddle,” Daniel McKivergan, Weekly Standard, September 1

Containment advocates oppose military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, arguing that a strike won’t work, that the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is exaggerated, and that Iran can be contained. Others argue that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, that all options should remain on the table, and that a Soviet-like containment policy is full of holes. Then there’s Newt Gingrich. Today’s Washington Times report:

“In an impromptu speech during a Mediterranean cruise that hosted scores of conservative donors and activists, the Georgia Republican expressed unexpected skepticism about prospects of military intervention to halt Iran’s nuclear program….

“‘I am opposed to a military strike on Iran because I don’t think it accomplishes very much in the long run,’ said Mr. Gingrich, who supported the US-led invasion of Iraq and has been a strong defender of Israel.

“‘I think if this regime [in Iran] is so dangerous that we can’t afford to let them have nuclear weapons, we need a strategy to replace the regime,’ Mr. Gingrich said. ‘And the first place you start is where Ronald Reagan did in Eastern Europe with a comprehensive strategy that relied on economic, political, diplomatic, information and intelligence’ means."…

“ ‘I think our position should be that we don’t expect Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be around for very long,’ he said. ‘But we think the Iranians are going to get rid of him. We’re not. But then I would do everything I could to make that possible.’”

Gingrich is pushing what is essentially a “containment plus” strategy. Reagan came into office in 1981; the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Does anyone believe that Iran won’t acquire a nuclear weapon in the next, say, 3-8 years? He’s right that regime change would be desirable, but we have no idea whether the implementation of such a policy would bear fruit before the Ahmadinejad regime acquired a weapon. And even if one harbors doubts about the efficacy of military strikes against Tehran’s nuclear facilities, it’s hard to imagine how foreclosing the option so publicly strengthens the diplomatic hand of those trying to compel Iran’s compliance with UN Security Council resolutions.

- For more, subscribe to The Intellectual Activist Daily

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/05/2006 at 11:22 AM   
Filed Under: • Politics •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner