Is Newt Gingrich a viable candidate?

Throughout most of the summer and up until quite recently, the poll numbers indicating support for a Gingrich presidency were hovering in the low, single digits. Those numbers are recenty starting to tick upward ever so slightly as Tony Lee recently observed...

"In a volatile election cycle, Gingrich has battled his way back into contention, rising to third place in several national and state polls on the force of his ideas and breadth of knowledge of how Washington does and does not work. After nationally televised debates and local town halls, Gingrich has made voters want to give him a second look, especially after he speaks emphatically about American Exceptionalism and about bureaucrats and unelected judges who threaten to undermine it."

Gingrich answers some of the tough questions facing anyone who would like to lead this nation in the linked Human Events article. And kudos to Gingrich and Herman cain agreeing to an unmoderated Lincoln-Douglass type of debate. Today's televised debates seem to be moderated disproportionately by media figures whose political leanings skew leftward.

John Hawkins cuts to the heart of the matter by spelling out why a Gingrich candidacy is so appealling to conservatives...

"Over the last fifty years, the three most important politicians to the conservative movement have been Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Newt Gingrich. Goldwater got the ball rolling while Reagan and Newt proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that conservative governance would work in the real world.

Newt's books and columns have been consistently conservative, his public comments have been consistently conservative, and his debate performances have been consistently conservative. As a matter of fact other than perhaps Michele Bachmann, Newt is the purest movement conservative on the stage. If you're a conservative who wants someone who represents your beliefs in the White House, you couldn't do much better than Newt Gingrich."

I wholeheartedly agree with Hawkins on the above statements as few people in American politics are a solidly conservative as Gingrich. Hawkins goes on in the article to present his idea that Newt's personal baggage isn't as bad as it seems at first glance. Perhaps so, but it's a given fact that the MSM never treats faux pas by conservatives the same as those by leftists and thus I don't think Gingrich would receive anywhere near the lack of attention and abscence of inches of type as were curiously not devoted to Al Gore or John Edwards.

The Thankful, Conservative Mindset

Not to make this place "Dennis Prager Central" or anything, but when someone knocks several articles out of the park in succession, then my hat's off to them. Today's article by Prager explains why it's more than just a generalization to think of Leftists as whiney, complaining types who do little to improve things...

"According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal Americans.

Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than ourselves."

But common sense and data suggest other explanations.

For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals. And as regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century, conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.

Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others explanation for liberal unhappiness."

This is nothing new and the same can apply to the atheistic mindset. Indeed, as far back as 1855, for all of their complaints about Christianity, according to an article in The New York Observer, "Infidelity makes a great outcry about it's philanthropy, but religion does the work". It is as true today as it was back then.

Prager goes on to note some other differences in the opposing views that can affect one's happiness...

"Utopians will always be less happy than those who know that suffering is inherent to human existence. The utopian compares America to utopia and finds it terribly wanting. The conservative compares America to the every other civilization that has ever existed and walks around wondering how he got so lucky to be born or naturalized an American.


..imagine two Americans living in essentially identical socioeconomic conditions. Both earn $45,000 a year, both have the same amount of debt on their homes and both have the same number of dependents. One seeks governmental assistance wherever possible; the other eschews any governmental help. Which one is likely to be the liberal and which one is likely to be the happier individual?

This is not a question only an oracle can answer. The one who yearns for governmental help is the one who is likely to be both liberal and less happy. Conservatism, which demands self-reliance, makes one happier. The more one feels that he is captain of his or her ship (as poor as that ship may be), the happier he or she will be."

All of this paints a picture of insecure, inward-directed people who feel that Big Government should be taking care of them. I personally despise governmental tyranny and want to deal with it/rely on it as little as possible. Perhaps if the current (US) congress does what it was elected to do, there will be less intrusion into people's lives and self-reliance might be seen as the virtue that it can be and not some odd sort of anamoly that it is more commonly being viewed as these days.