Idealink

Icon

Ideas, Linked; Ideals, Inked.

Gingrich: “Gays and Secular Fascists”


This is precisely why Newt Gingrich is a reprehensible politician and will never elevate himself to the statesman status he clearly covets.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/17/gingrich-on-prop-8-protes_n_144452.html

He actually called people who believe in EQUAL RIGHTS fascists. There was a time when liberals used to throw that word around with reckless abandon. But at least they understood the meaning. A fascist wants to impose government power upon the powerless, to strengthen the nation AT THE EXPENSE of its citizens, typically, the military-industrial complex.

There was a time when conservatives used a slightly more accurate epithet to describe people who believed in equality: communist.

Were this any other Republican, I’d be less up-in-arms. But Newt Gingrich isn’t just any Republican. In 1971, he received a PhD in “Modern European History” from Tulane, an excellent school. And, in 1971, you can bet everyone understood the political continuum, and where different ideas and values fit. And an American exceptionalist such as Gingrich would understand precisely where America, liberals in America, and conservatives in America, fit on that continuum.

Here goes:

Fascism is all the way over there on the far right. Communism is all the way over there, on the far left. From the right, we have plutocracy, monarchy, and oligarchy. From the right (typo) left are socialism and other collectivist views. And in the middle are republicanism (small “r”) and democracy (small “d”). American conservatives tend towards the former, and American liberals tend toward the latter.

NB: anarchy, being technically the absence of formal government, is not included on this. Libertarianism is a flavor of the impetus toward small “d” democracy.

Some would argue that the continuum is curved, to make something of a “U” or a circle, demonstrating that fascism and communism are, in their implementations, closer to each other than their ideals tell us they are. This is because on one extreme is the sovereignty of a single individual, who is in essence the country, and on the other is sovereignty of the collective national. In the middle is where sovereignty of the individual has its highest place.

So Gingrich knows better. He’s a historian who knows precisely how these ideologies fit on the spectrum, and precisely where those who want government to let them have individual rights actually belong: in the middle. He also is a politician, and knows precisely how his words would be understood.

What does this say about this type of Republican? They are using specific words to code for the fact that they, the moralist Christians (who tend to religious oligarchy) are the oppressed faction by those who want individual rights.

Victim language.

They also use rights language, like “small government”, to imply they want government out of their hair.

You cannot simultaneously want government out of your hair and expect it to enforce ANY moral value (Christian or otherwise). American government is not meant to protect the rights of the empowered against the powerless. It is meant to do the opposite.

You’re powerful, Mr. Gingrich, and playing victim is not only intellectually dishonest, it’s also dangerous. Because America has ACTUAL victims who need ACTUAL help. And when you enable the mindless cronies who DON’T understand history (such as O’Reilly) to practice that victimhood, you are enabling a whole slate boys who cried wolf. Hurting the powerless.

This is not a petty argument. And it’s not about whether gay marriage is right or wrong. It’s about abusing power to keep it, and abusing language to twist reality. White married heterosexual men are the most powerful people in this country. Clinging to power by pretending to be a victim is reprehensible. Someone ought to speak for the ACTUAL victims (though I myself am not one) and say this to you, Mr. Gingrich: You practice the most vile kind of un-Americanism that exists. You know you are lying to keep power, and yet you do it anyway.

Advertisements

Filed under: Culture, Philosophy, Politics, , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses

  1. Claiming victimhood seems to be the new trend among politicians. It reminds me of the “assault on christmas.” And you are right: it’s offensive for people in power to claim that they are victims just to score political points.

  2. Tacitus says:

    “Fascism is all the way over there on the far right. Communism is all the way over there, on the far left. From the right, we have plutocracy, monarchy, and oligarchy. From the right are socialism and other collectivist views. And in the middle are republicanism (small “r”) and democracy (small “d”). American conservatives tend towards the former, and American liberals tend toward the latter.”

    Thanks for this, I needed a good laugh. The notion that “plutocracy, monarchy, and oligarchy” come from the conservative end of the American political spectrum is hilarious.

    Please continue with the indignant outrage.

  3. vijtable says:

    @ Tacitus

    “The notion that “plutocracy, monarchy, and oligarchy” come from the conservative end of the American political spectrum is hilarious.”

    I agree. That’s why I never claimed that. I said American conservatism is in the middle, but on the right side of the middle. And that American liberalism is in the middle, albeit the left side of the middle. Both of the “middle” paths exalt the value individual rights, more than any other path on this continuum.

    This is relatively basic political theory, something Gingrich is terribly familiar with. I see you’re criticizing my point of view without presenting a constructive counter-argument. That Gingrich is equating an individual rights movement (middle-left, in this case) with a fascist (extreme far right) one is vile, especially because he knows he’s lying.

  4. I only disagree with one thing. I don’t think Gingrich is half as powerful as you say he is. Take a look at how the Republican party is scrambling to find a new leader. Palin? Please, the party can do much better than her. Think of Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana. He’s an up and comer. No matter whose name is tossed around, Mike Huckabee included, nowhere do I hear Gingrich’s name. Not even as the “elder statesman” which should probably belong to Bob Dole, only he doesn’t want it.

    I don’t see Newt Gingrich unifying the Republican party at any level.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Archives

Idea(mobile)link

Blog Stats

  • 7,912 hits
Creative Commons License
Idealink by vijtable is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work by various sources, as cited.
%d bloggers like this: