The Gingrich “Discipline” Issue, and the Filter of the Main Stream Media

As I think any Republican who now is considering supporting Newt Gingrich a serious candidate for the Presidency would acknowledge, the primary concern is whether the Newt they are seeing is a more mature and disciplined leader emerging from a Churchillian exile to save the country, or is he the same Newt that challenged, yet disappointed so many of us during his rise to Speaker of the House.  How we each resolve this concern will determine whether Newt becomes the GOP nominee.

But in making this evaluation, I would caution all Republicans not to confuse Gingrich’s willingness to think and discuss deep and persistent problems facing this country with a lack of political discipline.  In an era when our country is craving someone who will seriously lead this country by persuading us to help to reform our government and politics, are we really looking for someone who will not think deeply, and challenge us to think deeply about the issues we face?  Are we simply looking for the person who will give us the best 10 to 30 second soundbites, or who thinks and speaks in poll-tested labels?  Did Reagan persuade us this way, or did he spend a political generation persuading us by challenging us to think about the direction of our country?

I say all of this because the media is making much of Newt’s comments this week about the problems caused by a lack of educational and employment opportunities in poor communities, which have created a vicious cycle that both causes, and is continued by dysfunctions in families, the institutions that serve those communities, and government policies (like those policies that inhibit the ability of young men and women to find jobs, learn skills and develop the self-reliance needed to succeed as adults).  What he said is consistent with concerns expressed by many influential people over the years, including Bill Cosby and Shelby Steele.

To digress for a moment, I personally encountered the problem Newt addressed almost 20 years ago, when I volunteered with the then-Houston Chamber of Commerce (now known as the Greater Houston Partnership), in its effort to create business partnerships with local schools.  During that effort, I spent a full day observing and talking to classes, and meeting with teachers and the principal at an HISD elementary school in the Fifth Ward, at which 90{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the students qualified for Title I support under federal law.  On the drive over to the school, one of the teachers prepared me for what I would observe, by saying that she had been at the school since it opened in the early 1970s, that in just 20 years she was already seeing the third generation of some families come through the school in which no men were involved, that there were few if any role models in the community who were employed, and that there were virtually no male adult role models other than those involved in criminal activity.  She told me that if they were not able to engage students to learn by the end of 3^rd Grade, they found that the unengaged students would eventually drop-out of the school system.

I sat in on three classes and observed some of what this teacher had described in the attitudes and comments of the children.  I spoke to, and answered questions from a fourth grade class, at the end of a lesson about the U.S. Constitution.  When the students learned that I was a lawyer, the questions included:

• “Will my mother go to jail if she can’t pay our bills?”
• “If my brother goes to jail, will my mother have to go to jail if he can’t pay his lawyer?”
• “My brother is about to get ‘probation’—what is that?”
• “If my mother goes to jail, do I have to go to jail, too?”

Needless to say, I was stunned by these questions, but did my best to keep a poker face and answer these questions as nicely and simply as I could, while trying to make my answers relate to our Constitution, our democracy and our legal system.  But notice what was and wasn’t mentioned:  the topics they were learning in class about U.S. History and the Constitution weren’t mentioned; fathers weren’t mentioned; their parents’ jobs weren’t mentioned; and concerns about jail permeated every concern.

At the end of the day I met with the principal to discuss the needs of the school that could be addressed with a business partnership.  I tried to be as candid as possible by saying that I did not know what business I could match with the school because its needs were so great, and the financial commitments would be limited.  She then said something that has stuck with me all these years later:  “We don’t need money.  Not that we couldn’t spend every dime and more, like a sponge absorbs water.  But if money is all we get, our real needs will never be met.  What we need are men – black, white, or purple – just men.  We need men who, like you, have a job and can show these children that there is another way to live life than what they see the men do in this community.  They have no positive male role models, they are raised by mothers and grandmothers and the few men who live in this community hang out at the corners and recruit these kids into a life of crime.  We need men to mentor these kids before 3rd Grade to believe that education has a purpose.”

What Newt discussed this week is a real problem that we, as a society and as voters, must be willing to discuss and address as part of our reform of government.  It is not a lack of discipline to engage people in a candid discussion of this issue.  Just as in the 1990s it was not improper for Newt to challenge people to think about the unintended consequences to families and communities caused by the abolition of orphanages – do we really think that the needs of young people who found refuge in such institutions disappeared when the orphanages were closed?  Do we really think there are no Babe Ruth’s out there any more?  If so, how do you explain what happened not long ago in Nebraska when a distraught parent left an adolescent at a fire house under that state’s law that allowed parents to anonymously leave babies to be adopted through the public system?

Are we really so naïve, or so stupid, that we can’t address these issues?  Or, do we just no longer have the stomach to discuss problems that make us emotionally uncomfortable?  And if that is the case, do we have the stomach to reform this country?  If we had had this aversion to address such issues a generation ago, would we have ever listened to, and followed Reagan?

I think you know that the answers to these questions are obvious, we just need the courage to embrace the obvious.

So, as you evaluate that large, grandiose figure that is Newt, focus on his maturity and discipline carefully, but don’t evaluate him through the filter of NBC News or the rest of the Main Stream Media, or even the Republican Establishment that has always been scared of Newt – just as they were scarred of Reagan a generation ago.  And their fear of Newt – like their fear of Reagan – manifests itself in their derision of him, his ideas, and his electability.  Anyone with half a memory who listens to the chattering class’s criticism of Newt’s electability has to chuckle remembering how we were told that we would lose to Carter if we didn’t nominate Bush or Baker or Connally (or Anderson), instead of Reagan.

This year’s version of such elite opinion wants you to confuse Newt’s intellectual curiosity, imagination and enthusiasm for addressing important, difficult and persistent issues with a lack of discipline.  It’s not.  A willingness to candidly address issues and ask serious questions in a time that needs serious thought and reform is a sign of leadership – and that has always scarred people who thrive on the status quo.

Evaluate Newt seriously and carefully – but don’t be scared into making your decision for the wrong reasons.