Category: Ron Paul

“Newt Gingrich has more debt than cash on hand, according to the FEC report he will file today. . . . Gingrich continues to carry $1.55 million in debt and the cash flow has evidently slowed. . . . [T]here are already complaints in the extended Gingrich universe about unpaid bills. . . . Gingrich’s February fundraising total puts him at the back of the GOP pack, after Mitt Romney’s $11.5 million, Rick Santorum’s $9 million and Ron Paul’s $3.3 million.”
— Alexander Burns, Politico

“Had the dominance of televised debates reduced the 2012 campaign to the level of a show-biz publicity stunt, manipulated by TV networks? Had the relationship between poll numbers and media coverage become a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, so that only those with good poll numbers could expect good coverage, and vice-versa? Had network executives and pollsters completely replaced Republican voters as the deciders of the GOP nomination? These were obvious questions raised by the long campaign, but none of the moderators in any of the debates ever raised those questions, perhaps for the same reason the Wizard of Oz warned Dorothy to ignore that man behind the curtain.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, “The Campaign as TV Show,” The American Spectator, March 2012

“The self-consciousness that mocks all attempts at spontaneous action or enjoyment derives in the last analysis from the waning belief in the reality of the external world, which has lost its immediacy in a society pervaded by ‘symbolically mediated information.’ . . . To the performing self, the only reality is the identity he can construct out of materials furnished by advertising and mass culture, themes of popular film and fiction, and fragments torn from a vast range of cultural traditions . . . In order to polish and perfect the part he has devised for himself, the new Narcissus gazes at his own reflection . . .”
— Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations, 1979

One of the great dangers of our age is the pervasive superficiality that mistakes seeming for being. This is a problem that extends throughout society and is certainly not a new thing under the sun. Christ excoriated the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocritical self-righteousness, describing them as “whited sepulchres” — whitewashed tombs — “which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.”

There have always been those who excel at seeming virtuous, but who fail spectacularly at actually being virtuous, and so skillful hypocrites have always been able to deceive those who view human nature superficially. Yet this problem has taken on new significance in an age when “symbolically mediated information” (or, as most of us call it, “the media”) so often shapes our perceptions and personalities.

The phenomenon of “the performing self,” as Lasch explained it, is peculiarly common in an era when so many people spend a significant part of their childhoods on the sofa watching TV, and thus are raised with the superficiality of perception that television encourages. (See the late Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death and The Disappearance of Childhood, for a deeper understanding of how TV affects our perceptions.) We cannot wish this phenomenon away; it is our new reality; and yet it important, if we wish to criticize the ways in which media influence our political discourse, to see this superficiality and the related role of “the performing self” as clearly as possible.

Grant this: The people who manipulate the media know what they’re doing. David Axelrod and George Stephanopoulos are experts at the manipulation of political perception. If some of us have learned to spot their handiwork (see my March 6 American Spectator column, “Political Puppet Show”) this does not mean we are entirely immune to manipulation. Republicans also engage in media manipulation and if you were shocked when Rick Santorum said Fox News had shown a pro-Romney bias, you should ask yourself why you hadn’t noticed it earlier.

This bias began to manifest itself clearly in February, after Newt Gingrich lost the Florida (Jan. 31) and Nevada (Feb. 4), and Santorum experienced a second surge with his triple victories Feb. 7 in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. How many times did reporters and commentators on Fox News repeat the Romney campaign’s spin that these were “non-binding” contests? Technically true, but blatantly misleading, the repetition of this spin clearly served to dimish the importance of Santorum’s victories and, I suspect, reflected a deeper bias among some people at Fox: Gingrich was their preferred “Not Mitt” alternative, because Newt is good on TV.

Being good on TV is, of course, a basic qualification for presidential candidates in the modern era, but Gingrich’s excellence in debate and his amazing ability to deliver crisp sound-bites with such apparent spontaneity is quite nearly his only qualification as a candidate.

When Gingrich’s campaign imploded on the launch pad last June, I hoped we would be spared the painful experience of watching Newt demonstrate his incapacity for the larger tasks of organizing a national campaign. When the derailment of the Cain Train in November sparked a “second look at Newt” push by conservative pundits, I was astonished.

Really? The GOP is going to nominate Mr. Third Marriage, the guy whose current wife was the congressional staffer with whom he was having an extramarital affair during the Lewinsky scandal?

Whatever else Gingrich has said or done in his career, that episode permanently marred his biography and even if he were somehow to win the Republican nomination, that biographical datum alone would suffice to doom Newt in November. Say what you will about his ability to debate the issues, Americans wouldn’t elect Newt Gingrich president even if his Democratic opponent were Al Sharpton.

No matter how stupid Dave Weigel thinks GOP primary voters are, the overwhelming majority of Republicans are at least wise enough to understand Newt’s ultimate un-electability.

Nevertheless, Gingrich has always had a vocal squad of cheerleaders among those who think that “issues” are all that matters in politics, for whom the thought of Newt debating Obama is a favorite fantasy.

But it is a fantasy, and it was never anything more than that: Gingrich never had a shot at becoming the Republican nominee, because his biography is so clearly un-presidential. The “narrative arc” is wrong.

Besides, who believes “issues” were all that matters in politics? I think I’m pretty solid on the issues, so why am I not running for president?

Once you’ve stopped laughing at the absurd notion of me campaigning for president, ask yourself why anyone ever took Newt Gingrich’s campaign more seriously. He was a Congressman from Georgia who spent four years as Speaker of the House before being rejected by his own GOP majority. And maybe you should think about this question: Why, during the past 13 years, did Newt never run for senator or governor or any other statewide office in Georgia?

OK, now to my point: Think back to January, to the debates in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. Think back to all of Newt’s speeches and media appearances in January when he said that there was nothing more important than preventing Mitt Romney from winning the Republican nomination. Think about the several times when Newt said that the only way — the only way — to stop Mitt was for all conservatives (including Santorum) to “coalesce” behind Newt Gingrich.

Obviously that didn’t happen and now, after having lost even in such of his supposed Deep South strongholds as Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi, after having finished fourth in 10 states in the past six weeks, with his campaign clearly teetering on the brink of complete collapse — now, I say, at this crucial point in the 2012 primary campaign, Newt publishes a column at Red State savaging Rick Santorum and once more insisting that he, Newt Gingrich, is the “only . . . candidate in this race who can offer the change our country desperately needs.”

Really? Fourth in Minnesota, fourth in Maine, fourth in Michigan, fourth in Washington State, fourth in Alaska, fourth in North Dakota, fourth in Vermont, fourth in Massachusetts, fourth in Idaho, fourth in Wyoming — if Newt Gingrich is so obviously “the change our country desperately needs,” why have so many Republican primary voters failed to see this?

Could it be that Newt Gingrich is deluded by his own narcissism?

Could it be that Newt was less than sincere in telling conservatives that stopping Mitt Romney was his top priority?

Could it be that Newt, knowing his own campaign is now hopelessly doomed, used this opportunity to damage Santorum’s chances as the last remaining viable alternative to Romney?

He could support Dede Scozzafava, but not Rick Santorum.

Newt is very good at seeming, but not so good at being what he seems. And he evidently thinks we’re too stupid to notice the difference.

No, Newt: We’re not that stupid. Unlike you, we have not lost all belief in “the reality of the external world.”

 

 

UPDATE: Speaking of narcissism, readers will forgive me for tooting my own horn about predicting Gingrich’s bankruptcy.

On Feb. 21, after the January campaign finance reports were published, I warned that Gingrich’s spending was “unsustainable.” Last Tuesday, March 13, I posted two important questions:

Question 1: How much did Newt raise in February? Question 2: What was his campaign’s cash-on-hand and total debt as of March 1?

Even then, I suspected that Gingrich would badly trail Santorum in February fundraising, and that he would have more debt than cash-on-hand when the FEC reports came in. That warning was repeated in various other posts over the past week until finally yesterday, I bluntly titled a post: “Is Newt’s Campaign Bankrupt?”

Excuse me for pointing our my own prescience, but you might notice that (a) no other conservative blogger warned you about Newt’s impending bankruptcy, and (b) the same bloggers who failed to predict this outcome will also fail to give me credit for having successfully done so.

Why is this? What benefit do others seek to gain by depriving me of credit when I so clearly deserve credit? Is it just my hurt feelings that causes me to notice this, or does this point to some problem more significant than my bruised ego?