Quote of the Day: Glenn Beck On Tea Partiers Supporting Newt Gingrich
I never thought I would see the day, but here it is: our political Quote of the Day is from Glenn Beck who wonders how Tea Party members can possibly continue to flock to former House Speaker and ultimate Washington insider Newt Gingrich as the possible (and at this point increasingly probable) 2012 Republican Presidential nominee:
“If you have a big government progressive, or a big government progressive in Obama… ask yourself this, Tea Party: is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy, it must be about race. I mean, what else is it? It’s the policies that matter.”
It’s not just that, however. NY Times columnist David Brooks nailed the other factor at work here:
Most people just want somebody who can articulate their hatreds, and Gingrich is demagogically happy to play the role.
Our politics is seldom about actual content anymore. It’s prime motivating force is hating the other side, detesting them, suggesting they are mere ignorant pawns, rather than people who believe it or not see things differently through a different political prism. They have bad-intentions, be liars or hypocrites. Our politics is about demonizing the other side, and desperately trying to get someone who can “take it to” X,Y or Z so on election day the winning political sports team can have the satisfaction of seeing the outcome of ballot box political domination, the other side’s humiliation and then use the power to enact policies that those on the other side may not like but will be powerless to halt or even shape. It’s about winning and rubbing the other side’s face in it and obliterating their power.
Once upon a time it was more (but not always) about someone who could best make a case on policy and use all the political tools and manipulations that we’ve seen in American history to put together a coalition and win. Now it is about the angry sound bite, getting that catchy zinger, the quick quote that defines an opponent so those on one side can cheer and the other side starts arguing about its inaccuracy or wildness.
And with blogs, Twitter, talk radio, 24/7 cable news the delay once inherent in the prevalence of daily newspapers and network evening newscast means hot button responses can quickly garner support and snowball — just as political blunders can quickly sink a candidate. The hot button is potent and the most potent of all is the hot button that satisfies the I-hate-that-person-the-moment-I-see-him feeling.
But wait…once upon a time Gingrich and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney did have key moments when they seemed to favor consensus. Both had “gone moderate” in other incarnations, for varying periods. In fact, some had considered them moderates or at least center-right versus talk radio right. There were voters who liked them in those incarnations.
But that isn’t what wins primaries or will will a partisan election in 2012.
And both Gingrich and Romney know it.
Just as voters who support them know they have not been consistent conservatives. Gingrich — for now — is getting away with it because he pushes the hate hot buttons so passionately and convincing and is a great quote machine.
With Obama part of the opposition is about policy and the contrast between the promise he held in 2008 and the disappointment he embodies in 2011.
And part of it — make no mistake about it — is most assuredly is about hate.
FOOTNOTE: One lingering question: is it too late for another candidate to emerge? Some thoughts HERE.
Share This
Related Posts
-
NRA Liars and Congressional Cowards
Posted on Apr 18, 2013
-
The Invasion of Our Nation Goes Unpunished (Al-Iraq News, Iraq)
Posted on Apr 15, 2013
-
The Medal of Honor for a Soldier Who ‘Didn’t Fire a Gun…’ – Part II
Posted on Apr 13, 2013
-
The Medal of Honor for a Soldier Who ‘Didn’t Fire a Gun…’ – Part I
Posted on Apr 12, 2013
I don’t think there was ever a time when “hate” wasn’t in the mix, but today’s instant and ubiquitous communication makes the fuse much, much shorter. And yes, the demonizing is rampant, but not all anger is unjustified or even counterproductive.
Frankly I’d like to see the citizens of this country get a little more outraged instead of being so acquiescent, BUT emotion needs to be steered with knowledge, not the other way around.
As for a dark horse saviour emerging on the right, well… I could see the viability of a Jeb Bush, but Jim DeMint? Puleeze! Even Bush would have to struggle with the ‘name’ baggage.
Only Ron Paul is running on wanting real change–and he wants to destroy all the poor and disabled in the process. I would support him if it weren’t for the fact that he seems to want to weed out all the people he considers are too weak to survive. Interesting POV from someone who does not believe in evolution.
Ron Paul doesn’t believe in evolution??? Good grief… that isn’t exactly a feather in his hat.
Hmm…get him off of FoxNews and he starts using his brain.
Ron Paul is a doctor. How did he get through the years of training primarily in biology believing that the science behind all of it, evolution, was bogus? That finally ‘God did it!’ was the answer.
Sorry, I know it is off the subject of the thread.
Concerning the discussion about Beck’s opinion of Gingrich, is there anyone here who cares what Beck’s opinion of anyone or anything is? I actually question myself if I hear Beck say something that I agree with.
Not that anyone including Glen Beck cares, but Newt isn’t the Tea Party’s choice. From those that I’ve talked to, the Republican mainstream is where his support is coming from.
That shouldn’t be surprising.
Newt hasn’t raised a lot of money-in fact his campaign is in the hole for overspending in the early days. He doesn’t have a lot of big monied interests backing him yet.
His support is coming from the grass roots who have been watching him criticizing Obama on Fox for years.
I only have the number for up to Q3 (the last period reported), but he’d already spent more than Perry at that point.