Newt Gingrich (D)

I originally wrote this piece for RevoluTimes on November 19, 2011

The growing sentiment across the country of “anyone but Obama” has placed the GOP, (driven by the enthusiasm of the Tea Party) front and center in American politics. The staggering number of Americans out of work and the unconscionable national debt has spawned a nationwide movement of voters searching for a candidate who will finally cut federal spending and shrink the size of government. Newt Gingrich is not that candidate.

Being a Georgia native, I’ve seen firsthand the masterful work of Gingrich the performer. It is unfortunately very rare to come across conservatives in Georgia who are aware of the former Speaker’s record. I’m sorry to say the two politicians Georgia is most noted for in modern times are Jimmy Carter and Newt Gingrich; contrary to popular opinion, the latter is no more conservative than the former. Despite his often touted, “Republican Revolution,” (which didn’t do much of anything at all) and harsh criticisms of Democrats’ endless spending, a look beyond the grandstanding and empty talking points reveals a charlatan, a professional blowhard who’s ability to rhetorically condemn big government policies is only overshadowed by his propensity to portray those same policies as conservative when they’re offered by Republicans.

One of the trademarks of George W. Bush’s big government conservatism, (and one of the scourges of the Tea Party) was the $400 billion Medicare Part D. Any self-respecting conservative has always wished to reduce the federal budget and the welfare state, not expand it. Gingrich on the other hand, strongly supported this increase in entitlement spending–and still does. Reports National Review:

“Gingrich supported Medicare Part D in 2003 — and the ensuing years haven’t made him any less supportive of the legislation. Asked in March if he regretted supporting the plan, Gingrich responded not with an apology, but with a ringing defense: ‘I feel strongly that the No. 1 purpose of health care is health, and Medicare was designed in the 1960s when pharmaceutical drugs were not a significant part of how you took care of people. And for us to have a government-run health plan that said we’re not going to help you with insulin but we’ll be glad to pay for kidney dialysis is an utterly anti-human provision. And so all I was in favor of was modernizing the system to recognize modern medicine.’”

While Newt’s words may indeed be comforting to seniors, they should be appalling to anyone who believes in constitutional government and particularly disturbing to those wishing to see a dramatic decrease in government spending and a restoration of the free market. Notice Gingrich does not seemed troubled at all by the notion of a “government-run health plan”; in fact he believes the government doesn’t go far enough. His statements regarding an opposition to government funded prescription drug benefits as being “anti-human” is predicated on the notion that without the State organizing and funding such care, it wouldn’t be available at all. How is this mentality and approach to government any different than that of liberal Democrats? For all of Newt’s lip-service to the free market, when the chips are on the table he folds every time.

Newt’s career is filled with endorsements of excessive and unconstitutional government spending and State interference in the marketplace. From ethanol subsidies, to No Child Left Behind and even a government bailout of the Mexican peso, one has to wonder how he’s managed to maintain his conservative cover for so long and why the Tea Party seems to favor him.

Perhaps it’s because the two policies most responsible for starting the Tea Party movement occurred while Newt was out of the limelight. His not being in Congress when TARP and ObamaCare were passed seems to have certainly helped to hide the fact that Gingrich supported TARP and has stated for years that he supports an individual mandate to purchase health insurance.
When asked in 2008 by George Stephanopoulos would he have voted for TARP, Gingrich replied:

“Sure, look, something has to be done. …I suspect were I still in Congress, in the end, George [Will] is right, and I would end up probably voting reluctantly yes…”

Newt’s right, something did need to be done, but not by the government. The market should have been allowed to liquidate the malinvestment, rather than such “troubled assets” being propped up at the expense of taxpayers. Newt’s tendency to presume so many social and economic ills can and must be remedied by government, rather than acknowledging government as the cause of much of our problems is further indicative of his insincerity when defending capitalism and the extent to which he’ll betray the economic freedoms and property rights of his supporters if given the opportunity.

One would think with such economic turmoil and anti-Obama sentiment pervading the country, supporting a government mandated purchase of health insurance would be a non-starter for anyone seeking public office. But the shape shifting Gingrich defies the odds as he has not only candidly admitted his support for an individual mandate over the years, but has also successfully condemned president Obama’s administration for imposing the same thing, simultaneously.
In an interview last May with NBC’s David Gregory on Meet the Press, Gregory played a video of Gingrich from a 1993 interview discussing health care in which Gingrich said,

“I am for people, individuals–exactly like automobile insurance–individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.” (emphasis mine)

When asked by Gregory does he indeed advocate for an individual mandate, Gingrich replied,

“…I believe all of us–and this is going to be a big debate–I believe all of
us have a responsibility to help pay for health care…”

Continued Gingrich,

 “…And, and I think that there are ways
to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently
we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you
post a bond…”

Not only does the former college professor have an obvious misunderstanding of libertarianism, but yet again Gingrich demonstrates his lack of conservative credentials. This notion of fixing big government rather than ending it has been seen throughout his career and persists in his current bid for the White House. His website remarks upon the need to “modernize the FDA”, (whatever that means) turn the Environmental Protection Agency into an “Environmental Solutions Agency that works collaboratively with local government and industry to achieve better results”, return to “Reagan era monetary policy”, (despite that Reagan appointed the destructive Alan Greenspan as Fed Chairman) and of course “Repeal and Replace” ObamaCare. Gingrich is the modern Republican Party personified. At no point is the prospect of actually reducing the size and scope of government and drastically cutting spending ever on the table. From the perspective of Gingrich and his fellow Rockefeller Republicans, excessive spending, crippling regulations and debasement of the currency aren’t to be condemned and certainly not to be reversed; but adjusted, revised and altered to the interests of the GOP.

The fundamental question that needs to be asked to Gingrich and each of the presidential candidates is this: Where are the actual CUTS in federal spending and where are you seriously shrinking the size of government? For far too long conservatives have confused pandering for principle, entertainment for integrity, and valued style over substance. If we are to truly turn the tide and rid our lives of government and restore prosperity, we can no longer afford to tolerate imposters, because political chameleons like Gingrich will always change their colors to mask what’s beneath the surface.