Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Right-Wing Social Engineering'- Now WHY Would Newt Go and Say a Thing Like That?
Reaganite Republican ^ | December 14, 2011 | Reaganite Republican

Posted on 12/14/2011 7:18:11 AM PST by Reaganite Republican

Not just some offhand comment...

GOP court-jester Ron Paul is now working the remark hard in Iowa as he attempts to sow doubt in the hearts of Newt-intenders... while the rest of us scratch our heads and wonder what ever possessed Gingrich to put it out there in the first place.

After seeing the Ryan budget's approval rating tank in the polls for a month, Newt came out in mid-May stating he didn't find 'right-wing social engineering' any more palatable than ObamaCare's 'left-wing social engineering'. The former House Speaker then attempted to nuance that criticism of Ryan's Path to Prosperity in the days following, only to sound a bit more defensive of the initial statement again later: flop-flip-flop?

With young buck Paul Ryan -a rising star in the GOP to be sure- rolling out such a bold plan to tackle out-of-control federal spending, TEA Party conservatives were suitably impressed... especially since nobody else seemed willing to cough-up a real, workable proposal (certainly not disingenuous, commission-appointing/ignoring-whilst-golfing Obama). Most of us on the right didn't seem to care much for Newt throwing cold water on it, either- that was certainly my initial reaction.

But considering that the Republicans' top medium-term priority is unquestionably recapture of the White House -followed closely by a total conquest of Capitol Hill- did a highly-specific, tough-love austerity budget plan laid-out in all gory detail (while the other side kept their cards pressed tightly against their skeevy hearts) help the GOP... or hurt us? 
(hint: there's a reason Obama lies all the time).

Recall that a lot of people were surprised to hear Trump -at the time leading polls and in favor of large budget cuts in principle- come out aggressively against the Ryan Plan's  ill-conceived strategic timing- yet it undeniably granted the Dems two full years to demagogue the issue and terrorize seniors:

I like Paul Ryan very much, but the plan that was put forward was put forward too early... there's no reason to put forward a plan that even touches Medicare, not at this point... 

It was put in play by the Republicans, and (we've) got elections to win. And you talk about "demagogue"... the Democrats are doing a number on that (Ryan) plan like you've never seen!

_______________________________________________________________________

Indeed the DNC wasted little time: not willing to wait for 2012, they beat the Medicare drum hard and often in both the NY special election (victorious, gubernatorial) campaign of Mario Cuomo, as well as their failed bid to retain disgraced pervert Anthony Weiner's congressional seat. In fact, eventual GOP winner Bob Turner had to renounce the Ryan plan in order to bring us that historic victory in NY-9 (the first time a Republican has held the seat in 90 years). 

Scheming progs were planning to beat the Republicans over the head with it for years... right through 2012 at a minimum.

Say what you want about The Donald in the wake of his recent debate-that-wasn't, but it's fairly obvious that he was right in this instance (as was Gingrich in practice, if not principle). Yet this was just as might be expected from far more experienced and skilled political strategists (read salesmen/poker players) than Paul Ryan, who -understandably- thought it was clever enough to release the plan in the midst of 2011 tax-prep season.

As for Gingrich, it appears he was carrying water for the RNC from where I'm standing (not the first time that's caused him major grief)... and thus now not in a position to be so brutally frank with 'it was politics': alas, primary opponents from the same Republican Party he was working in the service of as-a-whole now get to paint Newt as a RINO, flip-flopper, or worse- and there's really not much he's able to say in his defense, effectively gagged on this one.

As for the flipping and flopping, imo he had to walk a fine line not to hurt Mr Ryan's political capital any more than necessary, in addition to keeping all real options open for Republicans in the dealing with entitlement spending over the long-term.

You don't think so? Note the careful choice of words in that pointed criticism of social engineering. Although the budget featured dramatic across-the-board cuts, it is clear to me that Gingrich was attempting to abate any fears regarding the Social Security/Medicare portion of the plan in a very targeted manner and thereby dilute the Democrats' ability to turn the issue against us.  

Everybody on our side seems to be aware that Social Security is job #1 in any realisitic attempt to tackle out-of-control entitlement spending... yet regrettably, it's also the Left's favorite issue to frighten voters with as they tell people whatever they want to hear, stick their lying heads in the sand, and pretend that the well will never run dry.

While I have no way of knowing if Paul Ryan has learned anything from all this, Ron Paul apparently has not: never what you'd call a 'team player', Mr Paul surely sees himself as too messianic a figure to be bothered with trivial practical priorities like ridding this country of Barack Obama... to me the most vital task, one this unsettling old crank is manifestly not up to.

Not that anyone will ever have to worry about a Paul nomination: with "There's no Medicare in the Constitution!" just yesterday it appears he's still doing his damndest to try and scare-off any 2012 GOP voters the Ryan plan missed. Alas, as is so typical of cults, the fate of 'outsiders' don't seem to matter much to the paulbots (they're all bad and inferior to The Leader- so screw em), and in this case, that includes 90% of the Republican Party -along with pretty much all the rest of the country.

So quit egging RP on, Iowa... time to get serious already.

Noot in the Nooz: Newton Leroy Gingrich continues to hold a double-digit lead in Iowa, and up ten points nationally.  And while iffy-outlyer PPP has Ron Paul closing within one point in Iowa... they also show Newt now pulling away from the entire GOP pack in California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

Pics/RP humor/more at Reaganite Republican

________________________________________________________________________

 NewsCube   The Daily Caller   HotAir   RCP   Michelle Malkin   Wall Street Journal   memeorandum The Observer   The Daily Beast


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: gingrich; newt; ryan; social

1 posted on 12/14/2011 7:18:16 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Paul’s supporters and future voters had better look to his unrealistic ideas regarding the actions of Iran.


2 posted on 12/14/2011 7:29:08 AM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita

My #1 concern, that I can assure you SPV

And Gingrich’s remark that he’d like to bring Bolton on board was all I needed to see from him- that would be just perfect


3 posted on 12/14/2011 7:32:20 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Nest analysis I’ve seen on Newt and his skill.


4 posted on 12/14/2011 7:46:23 AM PST by WVNan (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WVNan

Much obliged~


5 posted on 12/14/2011 7:48:55 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Newt knows how to play politics. That makes a lot of people here very uncomfortable, but it is a useful skill for a POLITICIAN. A skill Cain (who I liked) lacked.


6 posted on 12/14/2011 7:52:38 AM PST by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

All Newt said was that social-engineering from either the right or the left, is fundamentally incompatible with liberty (read Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek to understand why).

I wish people would stop pulling a contextomy with this statement.


7 posted on 12/14/2011 7:53:39 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

This analysis is way too deep for most of the anti-Newts around here. They think they are smarter than Newt and prefer to think he stupidly stepped in it rather than believe he was way ahead of them in attempting to undo the damage Ryan’s bold plan was doing in NY 9 and elsewhere. I assume someone will come along and make my point for me here soon enough...


8 posted on 12/14/2011 7:59:18 AM PST by ez ("Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." - Milton, "Paradise Lost")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Newt went after Paul Ryan for two reasons:

1) His plan is the conservative free market plan, which Newt does not believe in. Remember, he is the progressive kind.

2) Newt’s ego is too big to accept someone else can come up with a good plan.


9 posted on 12/14/2011 8:02:19 AM PST by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shibumi; ken5050

Starting a ping list for any interstested pls
FReepMail @ Reaganite Republican

TIA!


10 posted on 12/14/2011 8:03:27 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Newt went after Paul Ryan for two reasons:

1) His plan is the conservative free market plan, which Newt does not believe in. Remember, he is the progressive kind.

2) Newt’s ego is too big to accept someone else can come up with a good plan.


11 posted on 12/14/2011 8:03:46 AM PST by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel

Nobody will beat Obama who can’t debate and WIN at politics

Only Newt has that AND the fire to whip Obama’s bony rear end... not to mention thick skin


12 posted on 12/14/2011 8:05:17 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ez

Wow- that didn’t take long lol


13 posted on 12/14/2011 8:06:46 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger

Wow, that was fast. There is a reason why you turn up the heat on the boiling frog slow...he’ll jump out the pot if you turn the heat up too fast. That’s what Ryan’s plan did and it cost the R’s in NY 9 and elsewhere. There’s a reason why it took 100 years for the left to gradually install socialist underpinnings. It can’t be disassembled in a single piece of legislation, you have to chip away at it.


14 posted on 12/14/2011 8:07:48 AM PST by ez ("Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." - Milton, "Paradise Lost")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger
2) Newt’s ego is too big to accept someone else can come up with a good plan.

This is demonstrably false AND petty. Didn't I read he supported the ideas of Alvin Toffler, for one?

15 posted on 12/14/2011 8:13:22 AM PST by ez ("Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." - Milton, "Paradise Lost")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger
1) His plan is the conservative free market plan, which Newt does not believe in. Remember, he is the progressive kind.

Possibly, though there's no real great evidence pointing to this.

2) Newt’s ego is too big to accept someone else can come up with a good plan.

LOL...yeah, that must be it. That's the ticket.

16 posted on 12/14/2011 8:19:14 AM PST by Future Snake Eater (Don't stop. Keep moving!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ez

“It can’t be disassembled in a single piece of legislation, you have to chip away at it.”

By just chipping away at it you accept and enforce the very premise upon which it is based. You can gradually work your way toward total government control/socialism but not toward freedom. Our problem is that the GOP accepts the liberal premises.
The Republican Party spends most of its effort promoting the Democrats and their agenda. No matter who is in power, the federal government, its power and expenditures, continue to grow with little chance of reversal.

The Democrats propose a “generous” increase in the minimum wage. The Republicans either oppose an increase and opt for staying at the current level or counter with a more modest increase. The Democrats say that we need to increase the school lunch program by x million dollars. The Republicans answer by offering an increase of one third x. Democrats say that the government needs to spend a lot more subsidizing housing and Republicans say that the current level is adequate. Democrats say that more people should be made eligible and Republicans defend the status quo.

So the predictable dynamic is that the Democrats fight for an increase in spending for some government program and the Republicans either oppose any increase or counter with a proposal for more modest growth. What impression of the Republican Party does this give? What is the one principle that people are able to discern from Republicans’ policies as stated above? That the Republicans are cheap and uncaring. Some may manage to construe it as fiscal responsibility but what it comes down to is withholding funds from worthwhile programs. Thus ultimately withholding help from those who need it.

If the Republicans agree to spend two billion dollars on a program they are inherently saying that it is good and just and worthwhile. Why else would they agree to spend such a massive amount of money on it? If people who position themselves as fiscally responsible spend that kind of money, it has to be for something good. Something right. Something necessary. And here they cede the moral high ground to Democrats, liberals, leftists by validating their policies, programs and agenda. It’s Democrats who are fighting for all of these good and righteous schemes and the Republicans who are dragging their feet.

Every time Republicans say yes but not so much. They are saying that the Democrats are right and they, the Republicans, are cheap. The Democrats are looking out for the needy and the Republicans are looking out for the cheap and stingy. We are cheap! Hardly an inspiring philosophy. Hardly a winning strategy.

We all know that the best defense is a good offense. The GOP has turned that truism on its head. Their only offense is a pathetic defense. And no matter how good your defense if you have no offense you will eventually lose. It’s inevitable. After the 1994 elections swept the Republicans t control of Congress, many anticipated the extinction of a few federal agencies. Many even a department or two. Dare to dream. Then we were told that Rome was not built in a day so don’t expect it to be dismantled in a day. Well we are still waiting for those first few bricks to be knocked loose.

Sure the left has moved us to a gargantuan and ever-growing welfare state on step at a time, or make that one billion a time. That is the only way it could have happened. Anyone who one hundred years ago tried to propose what we have now would have been run out of town. Any American town. As per the above it may be impossible to move in the opposite direction by increments. When you propose to spend less than the left wants the only principle that you are standing on and promoting is cheapness. Not a very compelling platform. Rather a recipe for long term defeat.

Being second-rate Democrats has been a disaster. Even when Republicans win elections. Agreeing to spend a fortune on Democrat social programs and wealth transfer schemes only validates those schemes. And makes conservatives-or what passes for conservatives these days-look bad. So virtually everything the Republicans do validates Democrats and make themselves look bad. A guaranteed formula for disaster.

So what’s the alternative? How about taking a stand. How about acting on principle? A principle other than cheapness. Will it be easy? The question is what are your principles and what do you want to achieve. If you want to be liked by the establishment intelligentsia then you definitely need to keep up with leftists. Just keep in mind that you will have to go further and further year after year. They keep raising the bar, moving the goal line. What “moderates’ are advocating and supporting now would have been radical a few decades ago. Trying to keep up will always mean that you will always be second-rate and always fall short.

The only was to go, which makes it the easy way, is to stand on principle. Without compromise.


17 posted on 12/14/2011 8:29:31 AM PST by all the best (`~!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Newt is the consummate politician - he will say ANYTHING, and DO Anything (or in his case, “sign” anything) to get votes. He is also about as “conservative” as Jimmy Carter.

Election of Newt is not much removed from 4 more years of Obama. AT this point, I would rather have a large majority in the House and Senate and keep Obama in the WH (if the Repubs then could grow a “set” and hold the line), than I would like either of the “frontrunners” for the Republican ticket to wing he WH.


18 posted on 12/14/2011 8:29:46 AM PST by TheBattman (They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ez
Thank you! I am thrilled that somebody else realizes that it is going to take decades to undo the damage of the Left.

Gingrich has a plan for SS. It is a plan that is VOLUNTARY and allows for younger people, s well as anyone that wants to, to put their 6.25% of the SS tax into a private investment account that they would own and builds equity.

It is voluntary, as any plan will have to start out as. You will find that it would be impossible to pass a mandatory plan of ANY type through the Legislature.

Ryan's plan was reasonable, but would NEVER pass the Senate. Why bring it up at all? Pound the Senate leaders and Obama to win the future and pass a plan when you are in control.

19 posted on 12/14/2011 8:37:58 AM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

Suffice to say you’re for somebody worse lol

The reason I know that is Gingrich is the most conservative
ELECTABLE candidate imho- ALL the rest are worse for one reason or another

Noot strong-armed Bubba into four years of balanced budgets and you call him ‘not far removed’ from another Obama term

That’s fair, lol


20 posted on 12/14/2011 8:38:49 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

“After seeing the Ryan budget’s approval rating tank in the polls for a month, Newt came out in mid-May stating he didn’t find ‘right-wing social engineering’ any more palatable than ObamaCare’s ‘left-wing social engineering’. The former House Speaker then attempted to nuance that criticism of Ryan’s Path to Prosperity in the days following, only to sound a bit more defensive of the initial statement again later: flop-flip-flop?”

No, that would be, if we assume that he changed his position from A to B and then back to A, a flip flop. Arlen Spectre did not flip flop when he converted from Dem to Rep, it was only when he went back to Dem that he completed the maneuver.


21 posted on 12/14/2011 8:53:07 AM PST by Darth Reardon (No offense to drunken sailors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

“All Newt said was that social-engineering from either the right or the left, is fundamentally incompatible with liberty (read Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek to understand why).”

What does “Road to Serfdom” have to do with it? Are you trying to say Ryan is a rightwing socialist? Because that’s the only way Newt’s and your point makes sense. But Ryan was only proposing we do a little less engineering. If ceasing to engineer is itself a form of engineering, and maybe it is according to a certain , fine. Then there’s no way out of social engineering without social engineering, and I really have no idea what Newt’s point is.

Just Newt blowing hot air, per usual. He, like every lifelong politician ever, paints the do-nothing middle as the only reasonable position. Socialist if you do socialism, and socialist if you ease up on it, too. Somehow, though, keeping on doing as we’ve done, with a perpetual upward motion on a gradual enough curve, isn’t socialist. Makes no sense whatsoever, but doesn’t have to because the power of political inertia is on his side, and no one pays too much attention to words.


22 posted on 12/14/2011 9:38:45 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

You give Newt far too much credit (i.e. - balanced budget/strong-arm Bubba).

In fact, you kind of backed up my premise - that a strongly Republican Congress (BOTH houses) would keep Obama in check. A RINO in the WH would get their way even with a Repub Congress (lest we forget the do-nothing years of GW Bush’s first 6 years....).

Am I for somebody worse? Right now, I am “for” NONE OF THE ABOVE, as far as the press/George Soros choices for the Republican nomination. I personally am sick and tired of being told who I can vote for. I am fed up with holding my nose and voting for someone who I cannot even pretend to trust. Here we are, pretending to be “Conservatives”, yet we are willing to compromise on every major conservative principal to “get elected”? You have to be nuts to think that is a better plan.

What is the point of claiming to be Conservative if we are willing to throw it all away just to win an election? What does that do? It shifts the politics of the entire nation further to the Left.. It’s far beyond time to pull things back to the RIGHT. As the Dems continue to fly WAY off to the Leftist/Marxist wing, the last thing we need to do is elect a “moderate/fake Conservative”. If your ship is veering hard towards an iceberg, do you straighten out the wheel (thus sending you directly into the iceberg), or do you turn the wheel to the right to correct the course and get back in the shipping channel (responsible, Constitutional government).

I have been called naive before for saying that we need to stand our ground and quit “Holding our noses” to vote... “thats just not how Washington works”.... That is because we have tolerated “how it works” for far too long. The ONLY hope this nation has (on top of turning to Jesus in masses) is electing real conservatives.

My expectations in a candidate are not “superhuman”. Heck - even Ronald Reagan had his faults (after all - he WAS a Democrat before he came to his senses). But when we begin to compromise core/key values - then we have gained absolutely nothing by getting a candidate elected.

Maybe comparing Newt to Jimmy Carter was a bit unfair - but I just don’t see him being significantly less LEFT than Clinton... and I believe that is a valid comparison.


23 posted on 12/14/2011 9:43:31 AM PST by TheBattman (They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hCTM2hzMvrY


24 posted on 12/14/2011 9:48:08 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

“it is clear to me that Gingrich was attempting to abate any fears regarding the Social Security/Medicare portion of the plan in a very targeted manner and thereby dilute the Democrats’ ability to turn the issue against us.”

No, wrong. That’s just the way he talks. Newt’s an academic, remember, and “social engineering” is a very common term among them, if not everyone else. And it’s no surprise that “social” happens to appear both in that phrase and as part of our name for the federal old age pension program, if you know what a buzzword that has become.

Then again, maybe Newt is a crafty politician and it was a codeword. Only it didn’t whatsoever work, from what I’ve seen. And if he’s such a crafty politician, why put it in such a way as to ensure to conservative alienation? Either he’s not as careful with his words as you suggest, or he actually believes them and doesn’t care what we think.


25 posted on 12/14/2011 9:54:37 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ez

“It can’t be disassembled in a single piece of legislation, you have to chip away at it”

Fine, then say THAT. It’s not as if whether or not something is social engneering depends on how sudden it is.


26 posted on 12/14/2011 10:01:01 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel

“Newt knows how to play politics. That makes a lot of people here very uncomfortable, but it is a useful skill for a POLITICIAN.”

Coming out against Ryan would be playing politics. Doing so with language that persuaded absolutely no one in the middle while alienating the base is playing politics badly. What actually happened was that Newt said what he thinks, and what he thinks is that reforming the welfare state in any manner other than the unsuccessful lilly-livered 90s model (and that probably only because he was involved personally) is just as bad as leftwing social engineering. Someone who thinks that, along with everything else Newt thinks, doesn’t deserve the Republican nomination.


27 posted on 12/14/2011 10:07:41 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ez

“he’ll jump out the pot if you turn the heat up too fast”

I have no doubt you’re right. But if we try Fabian anti-socialism, and especially if people like Newt lead and people like you make excuses for them, I have absolutely no doubt that one day we will wake to headlines shouting that we have to cut the government 50% by noon or else, and it’ll be too late.


28 posted on 12/14/2011 10:14:44 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

In the interests of the article you posted, you might also appreciate the video I linked Tublecane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hCTM2hzMvrY


29 posted on 12/14/2011 10:20:39 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

“The reason I know that is Gingrich is the most conservative
ELECTABLE”

I kinda sorta understand the anybody but a democrat mindset and the nomination of liberals or psuedo-conservatives following from it. But I’ll never understand why people think Newt is electable. What, just because he’s moderate and has hung around Washington long enough? That was the only argument for McCain, as I recall, and see how well that worked. Newt will never do better.


30 posted on 12/14/2011 10:25:36 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

“Just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hCTM2hzMvrY";

That explained nothing. Newt tries to bundle discussion of social engineering with the issue of whether Congress should pass unpopular legislation. Which admittedly was the context for his putting his foot in his mouth. But the issues then as much as now shouldn’t be confused with eachother, and his point is as off-subject and wrong as ever. If you want to criticize Ryan’s plan as too radical, fine. Just don’t characterize it as social engineering when all Ryan’s plan would do is lessen the amount of government interference in society.

Behold the dark heart of Republican progressivism and Newtonian moderacy: less government is itself a form of social engineering because society has so grown used to cradle to grave state intrusion that it is now its normal condition. Any rightist deviation from that is just as bad as leftist deviation, and must be condemned. Yuck.

The nub, if I have it right, is that Newt incorrectly classifies anything relatively sudden and sweeping as “social engineering,” and therefore bad. Letting the welfare state grow at somewhat slower rate than Democrats, I take it, is not “social engineering,” and therefore good. What a load of bunk.

The Hayek thing is an empty name-drop, nothing more. Because the point of “The Road to Serfdom,” or part of it, was that Nazis and Commies, rather than on opposite poles of the political spectrum as lefties would have us believe, were both socialists. The only relevance this would have is if Ryan, or specifically the Ryan plan, is socialist, too. Which means Newt thinks standing in the way of socialism is socialist.

What a travesty, to pull Hayek into this sordid discussion. He was infinitely more libertarian than Newt or Ryan, and ff anyone’s proposals constitute dangerous rightwing social engineering, it would be his.


31 posted on 12/14/2011 10:56:30 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Because Gingrich is a moderate playing far right.No wonder Clinton likes him.


32 posted on 12/14/2011 10:58:57 AM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

“...classifies anything relatively sudden and sweeping as “social engineering,” and therefore bad. Letting the welfare state grow at somewhat slower rate than Democrats,”

And therein lies the reason Ron Paul even can have a campaign...


33 posted on 12/14/2011 11:05:37 AM PST by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

We can agree to disagree. First, the Ryan plan had zero chance of getting passed. Second, Newt is running against Ryan’s dad. Third, your take on what Newts thoughts about reform are your opinion, and nothing more. FYI, I personally like the Ryan plan.


34 posted on 12/14/2011 3:21:18 PM PST by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson