Newt: The Ultimate Blowhard
Sometime in the summer or fall of 2006 Newt Gingrich delivered very strong remarks in New Hampshire about the threat of terrorism and the draconian measures our society must take against it. He made it sound as though he was prepared to turn our society into a hyper-security state in order to suppress extremist Islam. The comments were widely circulated on the conservative Web, with lots of people saying that Gingrich was the man to be president,
Because he seemed to understandGingrich has continued with these themes up to the present. On July 18, 2007, the AP reported:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich charges that the United States has been waging a weak and “phony war since 9/11” and continues to lose ground to radical Islam.Gingrich also says repeatedly that the jihadists and terrorists are “evil” and that we must treat them accordingly.
Ok, then, according to Winston S. Gingrich, what would a “real” war, not a “phony war” (or, as Churchill himself called it, a “Twilight War”), against these “evil” people consist of?
Gingrich gave an idea in an immensely long letter he wrote a couple of months ago for the Independent Women’s Forum (no link). The letter began by striking the same notes as in his New Hampshire talk and his speech to the Christians United For Israel: ultimate danger, ultimate war, victory or death, the whole schmear. But then, after two or three pages of this martial build-up, Gingrich launched into the main purpose of the letter, which was to promote a program to reduce Muslim extremism by (you couldn’t make this up) empowering Muslim women and getting them interested in democracy.
So, we’re facing “evil” (a word Gingrich seems to use more than Bush has ever done), we’re facing the greatest danger in our history, we’re facing remorseless enemies out to destroy us, we must bend all our energies to meet this challenge, and the way to meet it is to fund democracy programs for Muslim females.
Moreover he didn’t say that the empowerment of women was, say, a secondary policy backing up the war against jihadism; his message was that the empowerment of women was the principal way to defeat jihadism.
As a female correspondent of mine has pointed out, people don’t seem to understand that every attempt we make to separate or liberate Muslim women from Muslim men only makes the Muslim men angrier at us.
In any event, the new Gingrich is the old Gingrich, and worse than before—the Gingrich who wakes up every morning on fire with a new ten-point plan to reform the world which you hear about once and never again; the Gingrich who (here’s just one example) in early summer 1998 urgently announced that Republicans must talk continually about the Lewinsky scandal, and then he never mentioned the subject again; the man who is all mouth, no character.
However, notwithstanding his blowhard qualities, Gingrich is not without an ideological constant, namely his devotion to global democratism. His declamations about “war” must be seen in that light.
And it goes without saying that for all his fulminations about the Islamic menace, he says not a word about reducing Muslim immigration or removing the more dangerous Muslims from our midst.
Alex K. writes:
Here is the only time Gingrich has remotely addressed Muslim immigration that I am aware of, when Malkin asked him about it directly.LA:
He’s a super-Bush: “We’re at war, we’re at war, we’re at war to the death! Let them in, let them in, let them in!”Maureen C. writes:
Re: “As a female correspondent of mine has pointed out, people don’t seem to understand that every attempt we make to separate or liberate Muslim women from Muslim men only makes the Muslim men angrier at us. ”LA replies:
Well, what is Maureen saying? Is she saying that our strategy must be to mess up, break up, and transform the entire Muslim mindset and culture? Because if she is, that would require a Norman Podhoretz-like military takeover of seven—or rather of all fifty-seven—Muslim countries, which we would then have to dominate at least to the degree that Kemal Ataturk dominated Turkey in order to uproot their customs and replace them by different customs.Van Wijk writes:
I have to say that I do not think Maureen’s take on this is in conflict with yours (and I welcome her reply if I am off the mark). I’ve read at VFR that it would be far better for the Moslems to keep acting aggressively so that we may all see how incompatible they are with us than it would be for them to simmer down and calmly outbreed us or pass Sharia law the “democratic” way.LA replies:
The Muslims are already “acting out” sufficiently to make the point for us. We do not need deliberately to provoke them more. Yes, the West is far from waking up, and, as I’ve written many times, the Muslim threat must get much worse before the West wakes up if it ever wakes up. But that is not the same as saying that we should do things to make their behavior worse so that our side will wake up sooner.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 01, 2007 07:00 PM | Send