The question is simple but profound: Will the 2012 presidential-election campaign be about big ideas? Ideas like whether the American people are still masters of their own destiny or instead have resigned themselves to a rule of lawyers advertising itself as “the rule of law”?
To push these fundamentals to the fore is the rationale of Newt Gingrich’s candidacy. If ever there were a big-ideas guy, it’s the former House speaker. Ideas seem to churn out of him faster than the Treasury churns out greenbacks for “green energy.” But do we want to think about them? Newt believes we do — perhaps not so much that we wantto but that we have to think about them, if we are to remain an America that is worth preserving. He is also a historian uniquely sensitive to a unique historical moment.
Advertisement
The Obama years have pushed the accelerator on what had been a long, inching slide into the progressive abyss. For three-quarters of a century, statism was a Fabian project. It was reminiscent of what Jefferson, explaining his fear of the federal judiciary’s gradual imperialism, described as “working like gravity by night and day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all consolidated into one.”
Bucking this trend, President Obama has leapt way ahead to the endgame: a blizzard of unaccountable czars, nationalized sectors, suffocating regulations, and redistributed trillions. The result is economic stasis, massive unemployment, crony socialism, and the hovering prospect of punishing taxes, crippled productivity, mounting social unrest, and a loss of liberty so dramatic one actually notices that it is happening. Americans have now seen the future, and, in growing numbers, they are horrified by it.
In addition, after three years of watching congressional Democrats slavishly toe the line — watching spectacles such as majority leader Harry Reid’s decision to blow up time-honored Senate parliamentary rules just to avoid taking a vote that would embarrass the president — Americans are also grasping that what makes Obama and his Occupy Wall Street base “radical” is mainly their impatience. They want — right now — the end of history that the progressive establishment has heretofore been content to crawl toward, inch by cautious inch.
One of the few virtues of Obama’s pedal-to-the-metal approach is that it forced Democrats to choose sides. They’ve chosen him over a public that repeatedly shows it does not want what he’s redistributing. In the 2010 elections, that choice proved catastrophic for Democrats, but the rout hasn’t mattered. They’re still with him, because they accept his premises even if they’re not crazy about his pace. That illustrates that the trajectory we’ve been on since the 1930s leads inexorably to where the Obama Left wants to go. There is a reason why Bill Buckley yelled, “Stop!” — not “Slow down!” — as he stood athwart history.
So here is the dilemma: We have a moment in time in which it is possible to demonstrate, starkly, that statism does not work, and therefore that it ought to be removed root and branch. That argues not only for dumping Obama but also for rolling back the tide of which Obama is merely the most destructive wave. On the other hand, Obama is uniquely destructive. Therefore, the GOP Beltway Bible instructs, our priority is to come up with a safe candidate — one who is smooth enough to fade into the woodwork and make the election solely about the president. This is no time to scare people, the pros tell us. Let’s not get independents fretting about some conservative counterrevolution.
Denying jurisdiction, defunding rulings -- those solutions get at the problem indirectly.
The problem is that the judges often pretend to uphold the Constitution by issuing written decisions that wrongly interpret the Constitution, which must be followed by the lower courts.
The Constiution says what is says. If the judges get it wrong, the People should have the final word as to what the Constitution DOESN'T say. So why not just amend the Constitution so that the House -- the institution closest to the People -- by majority vote could vacate the precedential effect of any case/holding that it thinks is wrong?
This is Mark Levin's idea, but he says a 2/3 supermajority vote should be required. Nonesense. No decision would ever be overturned. If a majority panel of attorneys (5-4) on the Supreme Court can vacate a precedent, then a majority in the House should be able to vacate erroneous decisions as well.
I agree Mark's idea is slightly flawed. I think it should be majority vote in the House as well.
However, in the meantime, Congress should do a better job of simply amending legislation when it disagrees with the rulings of the Supremes. Today, Congress simply accepts their legislative interpretations as final and rarely takes up amendments to legislation to circumvent the Supremes.
Andy- Great stuff from both you and the former Speaker. This issue is crucial and goes to the heart of returning us to our founding principals. Keep up the argument. Cain/Gingrich would make a great ticket as we need people of vision to change the landscape, not "managers" who will simply superintend the status quo. Really enjoy your trenchant analysis.
As Perry falls asleep, Romney fails to convince, Cain writes an absurd memoir and Bachmann becomes toxic, Newt is looking better and better by the day.
Mr. McCarthy is right to emphasize the contributions that Gingrich can make--Gingrich is deeply knowledgable, insightful, original, and energetic. He's sui generis.
Gingrich's problems are that he has repeatedly shown himself to be amoral, untrustworthy, and given to spectacular lapses of judgement.
Gingrich would be a catastrophe as president. He might play an extremely valuable role as a senior advisor to a president of character, good judgement & conviction.
I hadn't thought of that ticket - Gingrich/ Cain. Brilliant. Cain is not experienced in politics, but would be a great VP. Great place to gain the national political experience and probably a better "People" guy than Gingrich - most definitely 5 steps up on Biden.
That'd leave Gingrich to focus on policy/ politics. I'd have Bill Gross as Treasury Sec (smartest guy in the market), Andy McCarthy as AG (toughest SOB in law), a Daniels/ Kasich protege at OMB, and Josh Bolton at Sec State, female Rep. from Fl/ GA?? who's after the UN as UN Ambassador, and then Sec Def - ????
What the Republicans need is a candidate who can explain why conservative principles work. Nobody is better at that than Newt Gingrich. He will mop the floor with Minimum Leader in any debate.
Andrew also touches on why some are having a hard time getting their arms around the Tea Party. Pragmatic and single-issue conservatives are slow to realize that the Tea Party isn't really about particulars like immigration or social security, but about the "meta-issue" (let us call it that) of the very constitutional order itself. The Tea Party is not upset about spending merely because they are a bunch of accountants pressing for GAP rules, but because it reveals the underlying constitutional rot that made such spending possible. That's why the Tea Party people always talk about constitutional principles and wear 18th century costumes. It's because they see that all, ALL, our other specific issue problems can be rooted in the undermining of the original constitutional order that took hold in the Hoover-FDR years and has accelerated greatly since the LBJ-Nixon years.
Gingrich is not effective at emphasizing this message, that the election is not all about the President. Either that, or people just are too lazy to care.
It would be interesting if major legislation had to be ratified by the states. Since the 18th amendment resulted in direct election of Senators, it has become easier to wind up with Senators who are misguided if not corrupted by association with Congress and Washington in general. The states have lost the mechanism for protecting their interests. State legislatures have other things to do, so only major legislation ought to be reconsidered at the state level. Perhaps major SCOTUS decisions should be, as well. The people are becoming more and more disenfranchised, and seeing less and less that they can do about it.
Newt really is the guy who would be best at truly reversing the 80 year slide. He has the best ideas, and the best record in Congress proving he can get them through. People argue that he might be controversial or even (gasp) unpopular. All I care about, is that he is the one who would be most effective.
A thought-provoking article that expands on a windmill at which I have been jousting.
For wont of a better phrase, I will (incorrectly) call it the "Imperial Presidency". By this I mean the elevation of the Presidency to be more important than 'just' 1/3 of the government and 'just' 1/3 of the legislative process.
Just as the Supreme Court has come to be considered "more equal" than the other two branches, the Presidency in recent years has acquired a sheen of awe. We are told that our President is our "leader". Excuse me, but Chavez is a "leader", Putin is a "leader", Assad is a "leader". We elect one of us, a fellow citizen, as President - you know, a Chief Executive to "execute" the laws determined by Congress.
The Executive branch, just like the Judicial branch, has slowly usurped the powers the Constitution gave to WE, THE PEOPLE. We, the people, are best represented by (radical thought)representatives chosen by the smallest groups possible - Senators by State & Representaives by District.
Relating this to the upcoming election, my highest priority is a filibuster-proof Senate and a large majority in the House that could then through the purse strings control the Presidency. Second would be a President that accepts all the legislation put before him. Once those goals are attained, Mr. Gingrich's thoughts on the Supreme Court should be considered.
It was the progressives, starting with TR, who made the Presidency 'imperial' and increased its power, primarily taking that power from Congress, not SCOTUS.
It will only be after Congress asserts itself, becoming equal to the Executive Branch, that we can rebalance the government between equal branches.
This idea of Gingrich's is expediant, however, it will leave deep progressive roots, for another progressive rise.
Congress must reassert itself with its fiscal power, repealing all progressive legislation, including Obamacare, Dodd/Frank, The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, Johnson era entitlement and budget acts, reforming the FED and repealing income tax amendment, etc.
Gingrich is probably the only candidate that would fully understand and support this reassertion of Congressional power.
I listened to Newt's speech yesterday at the Values Voters Summit and was impressed - as always - with his depth of knowledge and thought on the Constitution.
His comments on returning the Supreme Court to its original scope and purpose really grabbed me, as did this comment:
"The idea that a US judge can become a dictator of words is so alien to our traditions and such a violation of the Constitution that that judge should be removed from their seat summarily. In a Gingrich administration, only people dedicated to the original meaning of the Constitution would get appointments."
I do not see Newt Gingrich able to swing the majority vote of the GOP to become the presidential candidate. But I do think that whoever wins the nomination, should draw Gingrich into a position where his ideas on returning to the original intent of the Consititution would be possible.
I believe the wise GOP candidate will be tapping the great minds like Newt Gingrich and Andrew McCarthy for essential new administration posts.
Excellant and thought provoking article. Newt is extremely intelligent and would be a good source to draw from for policy. I don't think he's prez material but he would make a great advisor or cabinet official. I hope whomever we choose to replace the current stasi style administration will uphold and protect the Constitution and not circumvent as the case has been for some time.
I'm not following this. The Congress should declare the Court's decisions unconstitutional? Or fire all the federal marshalls? While I have to agree that the Imperial Court has increasingly taken a Humpty-Dumpty approach to interpreting the Constitution, this sounds like a recipe for a permanent constitutional crisis.
I have always thought Newt, with all his warts, the best , most truthful,forceful, conserv with the most SOLUTIONS to our problems that we Pubs could put forward. I hope voters will give his new Contract at Newt.org a chance. At least, he should be on the ticket.
