A dear friend accused me recently of being "one of those people who is so rarely wrong that when he is wrong he can't see it or admit it." He was arguing a point that is close to his core and part of a present delusion in his life. What my deluded friend would be shocked to discover is that when I am shown to be wrong, I hold no ground sacred except my foundational Christian Faith and that faith has taught me to quickly abandon what is false and to acknowledge the falsehood, embrace the truth and thank my teacher(s). The reason in assessment of situation I can be right most of the time is because I take the grasp of Truth to be a center point and focus of my reason for living. So I actually look forward to replacing imperfect knowledge or just false knowledge with what is more perfect and less false.
Glen Beck in the last two years has been so amazingly insightful and correct (with the aid of a lot of people willing to share information) I hope he is capable of reassessing, when he is wrong. I very much appreciate Glen Beck, am a huge fan of his work to put together a cogent story of the crimes and corruptions of the progressives and their Marxist/Muslim agenda. I know he is right on a lot of things, but not on Newt Gingrich. By his own testimony, I think Glen was too immature, too politically lazy and too drunk at the time to have a clear view of Newt's history. And when he began to notice Newt, it was/is in a season of intense political debate and constant spinning and I think some trusted person fed Glen a well spun version of Newt, which has colored his view.
Don't get me wrong. Newt has made serious errors in private life and public life. Glen made fun of Newt's private life, which considering his own personal history it is the height of hypocrisy. I've been outspoken about Newt's mistakes in public life, but those mistakes are "nuanced" and not part of an overarching progressivist agenda. To Wit:
From Stephen Luftschein through the Facebook grapevine:
Response to the Glenn Beck fans regarding Newt and Progressivism.
I love Glenn - joined him in Israel, and long ago sent him many of the works he cited regarding Progressivism. And yes, there are progr...essives, lots, in the Republican Party. But Newt Gingrich is most assuredly NOT one. Glenn, in an unusual situation, has not done his homework, and worse, has not placed ANY historical context on the issues he raises. He certainly has not placed any historical context on Theodore Roosevelt, not my favorite President (Like Glenn, I believe there is Washington, and everyone else).
Here's Glenn's list one by one and why he is wrong.
1)Climate change - Newt has not proposed ANY government plan to solve it. He has said that there is climate change, and oh, btw, there is, but that we don't know whether it is natural climatic cycles or man made. His original position on cap and trade, which was a CONSERVATIVE idea 20 years ago, was to PRIVATIZE it.
2) Individual Mandate - the individual mandate was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation, the leading CONSERVATIVE think tank as an alternative to a full socialized medicine plan - Hillary Care. Instead, Newt managed to lead the fight against Hillary care so the entire point became moot.
3) Ethanol Subsidies - I do agree that these are a mistake. However, Newt's position here is that it is better to support American farmers than to send money overseas for more oil. The subsidies exist and have since the Great Depression. So, his support is wrong, but it is not his proposal.
4) The Fairness Doctrine - it is simply incredible that Glenn would bring this up. This, again, was a CONSERVATIVE plan to combat the total lack of Conservative voices in the media. Once talk radio began to become more evenhanded in the '90's he dropped his support and now that it is being promoted by the left, he actively opposes it.
5) Federal intervention on education - this is simply false (I'll refrain from saying a lie). Newt's position is that any monies now currently provided by the Federal government be bloc granted BACK TO THE STATES, and used for Pell grants or the like to give parents the CHOICE of schools, i.e. vouchers, to send their children to ANY school they wish, including religious schools (this is as far from Progressive as there is on the spectrum).
6) Paul Ryan's budget bill - Another misstatement. He absolutely did not oppose his budget bill. What I assume Glenn is discussing here is the "right wing social engineering" quote. This was in response, NOT ABOUT PAUL RYAN'S plan, but when asked by David Gregory if the Republicans should ram down our throats an unpopular plan like Obamacare, that is how he responded.
7) Immigration - the idea that we are going to round up 13 million people and put them in cattle cars and send them back, is absurd. Right now ICE cannot find most of the illegals. What does Newt propose? PRIVATIZING the system. Using a private company to come up with a guest worker card. What does this do? Add to the tax base of the country, allow us to actually track immigrants, rather than the system now which relies on voluntary compliance!!! (I'm an illegal alien criminal and I will voluntarily turn myself in!!! yeah, that will work). What Newt says is take those that are already paying taxes and in the system, and allow them to not be deported but NOT BECOME CITIZENS. Btw, a progressive would say that immigrants are the great unwashed and we should euthanize them or get rid of them, so certainly Newt's proposal is again, the very antithesis of Progressivism.
8) The Dept of Education - again, Glenn is missing the historic context. All one has to do is read the bill that 'created it". There was no creation of the DOE. It was simply split off from the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare. If you read the act, what it does is demand that STATES have the control over education and the budget for the new department was 13 MILLION. Not only not an increase, but a DECREASE in the amount of money spent on that part of the DHEW!!!! So, he voted for a Decrease in the size of government. Now, it is true he should have known that no Federal government dept ever remains small, but that is a structural mistake, not philosophic.
Oh, and btw, the man who first proposed a Department of Education? Warren Harding, my second favorite President, who ushered in the roaring '20's by cutting the size of government 50% in 2 years and ended Wilson's depression of 1920.
No comments:
Post a Comment