Last night, as I listened to Newt Gingrich’s victory speech after winning the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary, he made several statements the caught my attention—but none more than his nod to Governor Perry’s endorsement and their shared commitment to the 10th Amendment and returning power to the states. As he discussed this point he said that one of the reasons he was asking voters to be “with me not just for me” was because as “we shrink the federal bureaucracy” we must “grow citizenship back home to fill the vacuum.”
I could not agree more strongly. As I’ve tried to challenge fellow Republicans over the last few years, if we are successful in electing Republican majorities at every level of government and a Republican President, in 2012; and if we are successful in passing the legislation needed to limit the size and scope of the federal government and balancing its budget—what then? The needs of our fellow citizens that the left has tried to address through federal-government schemes over the last 50 years won’t miraculously disappear. The divisions that Charles Murray discusses in this new article, The New American Divide, which culturally exist within every racial and ethnic community in this country, won’t magically dissolve. No, the paradox of our victory will be that it only will start our job to fix this country, rather than end it.
For our victory to last, we must use our political freedom to re-assert our liberty, which includes our reciprocal responsibilities as citizens—responsibilities to govern ourselves, our families, our neighborhoods, our schools, and our states. This renewal of self-governance will require our active participation in the life of our communities, rather than continuing to delegate such participation to faceless bureaucrats in distant capitals. This active participation is the growth in “citizenship back home to fill the vacuum” that Gingrich is championing. If we don’t accept this responsibility, the activists of the collectivist left will re-emerge and re-take control of government from us—and our unique system won’t survive another spasm of leftist policies.
Now for those who think this is just another “off the cuff” idea from Gingrich, you’re wrong. In fact, he has been tremendously consistent about the relationship between limiting the federal government and a re-assertion of citizenship for many years. He made this point in his first major speech as Speaker-elect to the National Press Club in late 1994, and in the “American Civilization” college courses he taught in the mid-1990s. Nor is this idea new and revolutionary—it formed the heart of our Settlers’ and Founders’ view of America that de Tocqueville observed in action, and it formed the foundation of Reagan’s blueprint for his “New Republican Party” in 1977.
In fact, in a uniquely Gingrichian way, his widely derided critique of Paul Ryan’s budget proposal last year was consistent with his view of the need for citizenship. His point was not that he disagreed with the ends or the means of that budget, but that such broad and fundamental reforms contained in that budget would not work unless and until the people were ready to re-accept their responsibilities at the local level—it was putting the cart before the horse. To force such a sweeping change on people until they are persuaded to accept what that change means to their lives, would be “social engineering” from the present status quo that depends on federal involvement.
Now, I agree that Newt’s choice of words was wrong, but his point was correct. As we fix the federal government, we must persuade the American people to re-assert their citizenship and to accept the responsibilities that citizenship will require from all of us. Like you, I want, and the country needs, Paul Ryan’s approach to fixing the budget and the federal government, but it won’t work, and it will only delay the day on which we become a European welfare state, if we don’t become real citizens of this great nation again. In fact, look in the mirror and ask yourself—isn’t this re-commitment to citizenship what the Tea Party movement was all about? I can tell you that this re-commitment to citizenship is what forms the basis for the “Renewing the American Community” plan that I and others have been working to develop for the last two years.
So, whether Newt, Rick, Ron or Mitt becomes our nominee, we must dedicate ourselves like our forefathers did—with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor—to not just taking back the government from the left, but to rebuilding the bonds of citizenship with each other in order for our reforms to work and for America to remain the exceptional and indispensable nation—and Reagan’s ideal of a Shining City on a Hill.
Pippop says
That section of Gingrich’s speech caught my attention as well. While I’m still likely to vote for Obama, I’ll be paying attention to the development of this idea. Regardless of who becomes president, I think this is a valuable start to a new direction for America.
TopGun says
“We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100 percent insurance coverage for all Americans,” Gingrich wrote in 2006.
And in this newly-unearthed video from a Gingrich speech to the Alegent Health Clinic in June 2008, Gingrich did much more than defend the mandate: “I think you gotta require that everybody have insurance or post a bond,” he said. To be able to afford insurance and not buy it, he said, is “immoral.”
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/in-2008-video-gingrich-is-passionate-about-the-ma-4vfo
The above quotes and video prove Newt is a liar, and is just using 10th Amendment speak to sucker the Conservatives into his net.
It begs the question, why are you trying to paint over the fact Newt is as much a liberal as Romney, Ed, since their is so much evidence on the internet proving it so?
bob42 says
I like the sentiment of the article, and the notion of people helping people. However, the premise seems flawed in that it ignores the realities of our two party system. The political pendulum has always swung from from left to right and back, in a sadly single dimensional path that doesn’t do justice to the complexities and nuances of individual political opinions. Given it’s mass, and that its mainspring is wound by lucrative sums of money, don’t think it’s realistic to presume that the pendulum will swing in either direction, and suddenly stop in its tracks.
My hope is that the pendulum will not have to freeze in order for people to be better citizens and do right by their fellow man, even if the other person is part of different socio-economic class or holds incompatible political opinions.
Izzy says
Bob,
speaking of pendulums, Newt may have trouble with the evangelicals if they ever realize that a then 56 year old adulterer and his 33 year old mistress might soon occupy the White House. You gotta read the comments below this article. Laugh alert!
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/03/advice_for_callista_gingrich.html
bob42 says
Izzy, They’ll just add him to the long list of hypocritical politicians with zipper issues, there are plenty on both wings of the political bird.
Just like Anthony Weiner, he’s good for a punch line, or two… In SC, Newt got 40{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the married women at the polls. I heard that Herman Cain was jealous.
Izzy says
Bob, I’m not the biggest fan of BO but I do lean a bit left on certain issues, and If the Repubs had someone with a little less baggage, a little more common sense, and a grain of salt, they could probably win the thing. Even if one of these semi-sufistic mugwumps would stand before the podium at one of these really, very entertaining debates, look into the camera and mouth the words, “Some government is a good thing,” they might eek out a victory. They would, however, get a strong, “Boooooo” from the audience which represents a significant(Benzion) voting percentage, and says so very much about who we are. Have you noticed the crowd reactions in these debates? But it doesn’t represent all of us. And it doesn’t represent the majority of us, which is why BO will be reelected.