Squaring the Culture




"...and I will make justice the plumb line, and righteousness the level;
then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and the waters will overflow the secret place."
Isaiah 28:17

04/03/2010 (9:20 am)

Strategic Plan

Those who read this blog regularly know that I believe the United States to be hopelessly divided between two incompatible philosophical/religious/moral systems, and that continuing to attempt to cooperate in this fashion will result in civil war or oppression. I have committed to partition as the only means to rescue some part of the experiment in human liberty that the American Constitution represents, without fighting a devastating civil war. And I’ve said repeatedly that there is absolutely no point in continuing to cooperate in a political system with an opponent that’s completely committed to breaking the system as soon as they gain enough control.

However, my point of view is a tiny minority view. The mainstream of conservative thought is still trying to produce sanity within the current system with the current participants. The most incisive of these, Newt Gingrich, has what I consider the soundest strategy to bury progressivism permanently without breaking up the nation. He observes correctly that what the progressives actually believe is believed by fewer than 20% of the people in this nation; the only reason they ever win an election anywhere is that they lie like carpets about what they intend.

Yes, I know, Gingrich at times cooperates with moderates in a way that infuriates and confuses conservatives. I didn’t get his agreement with the global warming alarmists, either. But that does not change the fact that there has been no strategist in the Republican party that has produced anywhere near the sort of success Gingrich has been producing for 3 decades, and that includes Karl Rove. If you want to win, listen to Gingrich.

Gingrich gave the following speech at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend back in November 2009. I recommend that you listen to the whole thing. If we’re going to crush the neo-fascist threat of progressivism without dividing the nation, this is how it will be done. I still think there’s little point in leaving the traitors inside the system, but I’m willing to go along with this if we commit to it for the long haul.

I found the speech on Kitman TV, http://kitmantv.blogspot.com. Watch it here, or watch it there. The whole thing is around 45 minutes.

« « Homeland Security Meets White Guilt | Main | The Birch Tree Challenge » »

8 Comments »

April 3, 2010 @ 11:35 am #

I don’t want Gingrich for president…but I definitely want him on the team.

There doesn’t seem to be an outstanding candidate for the GOP party to run in 2012…so I’ve been mentally trying to establish my own parameters for what would be necessary qualifications. I haven’t gotten very far – it’s got to be a combination of star quality, governing accomplishments, moral steadiness and political savvy plus a willingness to stand up to Progressives.

Possible names I’ve considered so far are Jindal (who probably has a “natural born” problem that I expect Dems to jump on), DeMint, Ryan, Palin (of course), Newt, Romney….

I don’t think Palin will run in 2012…maybe 2016 – I think that would be more likely. Romney is appealing in many ways, but I can’t get past the Massachusetts health plan. I’ve “heard” that DeMint isn’t interested. The list seems really short, and nobody stands out. We still have a year or so, but I’m a bit discouraged.

April 3, 2010 @ 1:15 pm #

“If you want to win, listen to Gingrich.”

Like in NY-23? Gingrich sounds intelligent on many issues, but nobody who has so easily fallen for the global warming hoax can actually claim ownership of a functional brain.

When Newt lost his position as Speaker, he’s spent the rest of his miserable life sucking up to the media and the left. It’s sad and pathetic to see a good man go down that way.

I don’t listen to the man any more. He can’t be trusted.

SueK: You forgot Tim Pawlenty.

April 3, 2010 @ 5:26 pm #

I think I excluded Pawlenty last year…I don’t remember exactly why, but I think that in the 2008 he was mentioned a lot, and a lot of what came up was that his state program was – like Romney – rather Progressive oriented.

Since I don’t remember exactly why I formed that opinion…I’m open to the possibility – but I start with a slight bias.

April 3, 2010 @ 7:01 pm #

SueK: Maybe you were thinking of Mark Sanford? …and let’s not forget General Patraeus

April 4, 2010 @ 9:04 am #

Suek wrote:

I don’t want Gingrich for president…but I definitely want him on the team.

I hear this a lot, and I don’t get it. I suspect that we’ve all absorbed a little of the left-hand media’s slime attack against Gingrich. They really went after him in the 90s, remember? His favorability rating as Speaker was around 20%.

But do you remember that Congress that we all kicked out in 2006 and 2008 because they’d betrayed the Republican revolution and were misbehaving? They were behaving correctly while Newt ran the House. Congress kept spending down, did not play games, resisted a monstrous President, reformed welfare, kept its Contract With America. So tell me again — why don’t you want this man leading?

I honestly don’t care much who’s President. We Republicans think too much about President. We need to control state houses, courts, newspapers, and Congress.

And what you need to remember about slime is 1) everybody’s got some, including you, and 2) the left is going to do the same thing to every effective conservative candidate, regardless of who they are or how clean they are. So get used to supporting and voting for candidates who have a little slime on them, ’cause every one of them will.

John C wrote:

When Newt lost his position as Speaker, he’s spent the rest of his miserable life sucking up to the media and the left. It’s sad and pathetic to see a good man go down that way.

I think perhaps you’ve got a picture of Gingrich and Hillary Clinton standing together stuck in your head.

Newt sticks carefully to where the wind is blowing — but that’s what makes him valuable. His American Solutions project is all about finding issues on which conservatives can build a super-majority, where nearly everybody says the same thing conservatives say. Yes, that ends up getting half the liberals on board with us, because on these questions they actually say the same things we do — but there’s no other way to govern in the United States. I would prefer a conservative America, but if we’re not going to partition the states, this is the only way to go. You can take the hard line on every issue if you like (and I sympathize, I articulate the hard line all the time, that’s my job here) but unfortunately, that’s a good way to lose.

April 4, 2010 @ 3:14 pm #

I can’t remember the source, but the upshot of the evaluation that concerned me was that he was a brilliant man who produced a virtual barrage of ideas, but who didn’t tend to follow through. It seems to me that that’s exactly what the CEO needs to do – evaluate ideas (not necessarily produce them), and put them into action.

I like Newt – but that opinion stuck with me, and I haven’t seen anything to counter it. Hence, I don’t want him to be the CEO, but I want his ideas.

As for compromise – that’s a tough issue. I think we’ve compromised ourselves nearly into socialism over the last 60+ years, with never a compromise back. I would compromise to gain a majority, but in the end, I want to push the country back to capitalism. I don’t think that can be done with an even balance in Congress, so – like the Dems who have seized on their majority to push their agenda – I’d want people who are actually compromising in order to achieve that majority for the GOP instead of just looking for ways to push legislation through. So…as a means to an end, I’d go along, but I have a problem with individuals who are _looking_ for ways to be bi-partisan – I think that’s the route to socialism that we’ve been on. How do you know the difference? Now _that’s_ the rub! I don’t know the answer – I wish I knew someone who did!

By the way – someone said that the Dems have actually done us a favor – that they’ve won in the recent past by lying about their intentions and that most Americans would not have voted them into office if they knew what they really intended. Since they have gained control, they are more and more open about their intentions – and there may be hope that because of that, the people will reject their lies.

We can hope!

April 4, 2010 @ 6:40 pm #

“…the only reason they ever win an election anywhere is that they lie like carpets about what they intend.”

Heh. Guess that was you! But I’d been thinking it myself for so long that it just sort of fused into my memory…

April 9, 2010 @ 7:41 pm #

Phil,

I think you’ve convinced the great Walter Williams!

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/04/07/parting_company

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>