Guest MINDSETTER™ Jeff Scott: Newt is No Conservative

Monday, February 13, 2012

Jeff Scott, GoLocal Guest MINDSETTER™

The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC policy introduced in 1949 which dictated subjective terms for content by broadcasters in order to hold a license. The policy required broadcasters to present controversial issues of public interest in an honest, equitable and balanced way. Of course, what is viewed as "honest, equitable and balanced" would differ based on your own personal beliefs and bias. The policy was finally ended in 1987 which allowed for content to be consumer-driven. Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich co-sponsored the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987 (H.R. 1934) which was offered in Congress to try and turn the Fairness Doctrine into law. The legislation was vetoed by then president Ronald Regan. Taken from the New York Times, "In rejecting the measure, Mr. Reagan denounced it as ''antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed'' by the Constitution. ''In any other medium besides broadcasting, such Federal policing of the editorial judgment of journalists would be unthinkable,'' he said." If the legislation had been passed, broadcasters such as Rush Limbaugh, starting his show in 1988, would not have a show today.

At Newt.org, in reguard to the Fairness Doctrine, the website reads, "Newt does not support the Fairness Doctrine and he has been vocally critical of the left’s efforts to reinstate the doctrine over the past decade, including supporting Mike Pence’s bill that prohibited government censorship in radio in 2007. In 1987, the three left-wing networks plus PBS/NPR dominated media, and talk-radio was still nascent; many of America’s most influential conservative activists, including the American Conservative Union and Phyllis Schlafly, supported the Fairness Doctrine at this time. The rapid growth of conservative viewpoints in the media in the last 25 years is a testament to the power and innovation of the conservative movement once power is taken out of the hands of the elite networks and put into the hands of consumers."

The Fairness Doctrine is not the only instance of Newt Gingrich supporting the infringement of the first amendment. In 2006, the former Speaker called for a "serious debate about the first amendment", talking about restrictions on the internet and curtailing free speech in order to fight terrorism. "My view is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that we use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us, to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us." Is it really necessary, or legal, to give the government the power of restricting free speech on the internet to combat terrorism? I think we are too willing to accept the idea that further curtailing our liberties is the road to security, and that we should even trust government with these powers not to use them against political enemies and the American people.

Free Market Capitalism

Newt Gingrich has become a rabid advocate of sound money and has criticized the policies of the federal reserve and Ben Bernanke several times, especially during the Republican debates. I think this is a good thing, overall. Establishment politicians like Gingrich, a former Speaker and lobbyist, would not be talking about sound money, the mischief of the federal reserve and the chaos they cause if these ideas weren't becoming mainstream. Once relegated to the tin-foil hat wearing fringe, conspiracy theorists and gold bugs, the federal reserve has become part of the national political discussion.

The problem is that Gingirch never did anything about it when he had the chance to do so. For the life of me, I cannot find any legislation concerning the federal reserve that Gingrich supported and advocated. While Gingrich slams federal reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, he didn't seem to have any problems with Alan Greenspan, federal reserve chairman when Gingrich was in Congress, and finding a difference between the two would be difficult. Many credible economists and historians believe that Alan Greenspan greased the skids for our current economic problems. Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital and seemingly economic prophet as one of the only people to predict the housing crash and other problems, has said, "The whole financial crisis of 2008 has its roots in the cheap monetary policy of Alan Greenspan. We have to ask ourselves 'what is the looming crisis that awaits as a consequence of the cheap money policy of Ben Bernanke, because he's being even more reckless than Alan Greenspan?'" Perhaps if Gingrich were as brilliant as we're all meant to believe, he would have been criticising Greenspan with the same fervor as he does Bernanke, and submitted legislation to prevent our current mess. Presidential candidate and Texas Republican Ron Paul was sounding the alarm on the federal reserve and their destructive policies during the same time Gingrich was in office - he could have used a powerful ally like Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich also supported NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO. Appearing on the Howie Carr show, responding to a question from a caller about NAFTA, Gingrich said, "Yeah, well, I don’t think it was true in Mexico. I think the fact is that NAFTA allowed us to build jobs in Canada, the United States, and Mexico, in competition with China. I mean, our big competitor is not Mexico. Our big competitor is China and India. And I’d rather have jobs close to the United States than have jobs overseas in places like China and India. That’s why I was in favor of it. … So in a sense, I’d like our neighborhood to be fairly well off and fairly prosperous." Also, as minority whip, Gingrich could have postponed a vote on GATT during the lame duck session. Instead, he supported GATT, subjecting the United States of America to the WTO, even after admitting the danger, stating, "This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940's and once in the 1950's the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not saying that we should reject it; I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful because it is a very big transfer of power." Clearly, Newt Gingrich ended up being a great political ally of then president Bill Clinton.

Freddie Mac and TARP

In 2007 during an interview, Newt Gingrich talked about needing to improve regulations of the GSEs (Government-Sponsored Enterprise) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and prasied the institutions. In response to a question of whether or not his views on the issue are necessarily conservative in nature, he responded, "Well, it's not a point of view libertarians would embrace. But I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism. I recognize that there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development. Look at our own history. The government provided railroad land grants to encourage widespread adoption of what was then the most modern form of transportation to help develop our country. The Homestead Act essentially gave land away to those willing to live on it and develop it. We used what were in effect public-private partnerships to bring telephone service and electricity to every community in our nation. All of these are examples of government bringing about desired public purposes without creating massive, taxpayer-funded bureaucracies. To me that is a pragmatic and effective conservative approach." As his explanations for receiving millions of dollars working for Freddie Mac continue to evolve, his past statements on the concept of the GSEs and the role of government in this aspect seem to fit the description of someone who would be interested in lobbying for the GSE.

Gingrich's support of TARP has been all over the place. At times, he supported it. At other times, he didn't, but conceded he still probably would have voted for the legislation if he had been in Congress. At least concerning TARP, the former Speaker isn't alone, as just about all of the other candidates supported the legislation at some point and have attempted to walk back from their support.

So, What's A Conservative Again?

In order for Romney and Gingrich to win the GOP nomination, GOP voters must be convinced that president Obama presents a challenge and will be difficult to beat in 2012. And, of course, that is the narrative on talk radio and the mainstream media with few exceptions. This causes the mindset of voting for whoever has the best chance of beating Obama rather than voting based on values and principles, and the constitution. This is far from the 2010 mentality which led to the election of real conservatives and libertarian Republicans. It is far from that tea party movement mentality that seems to be drifting away. The result will be nominating John McCain again.

If Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are conservative, I'm asking for someone to please define what a conservative actually is. This is not a matter of nominating a perfect candidate. This is a matter of nominating someone who is even relatively conservative. Newt sounds great in the debates. He sounds great in interviews. If his record reflected what he says now, I would not be confused as to what a conservative is.