To balance yesterday’s rather optimistic “On the Square” article The Potomac and the Tiber—I don’t myself see much reason to believe that Gingrich has been affected by Catholic social teaching—here is a different view of Gingrich’s character, Newt the Destroyer.
Thirteen years later [after Gingrich resigned as Speaker of the House rather than face angry Republican colleagues he'd managed to tick off yet again], it was tough for Newt-watchers to feel any sympathy, when he whined about the incoming attacks mounted by a Romney-supporting super-PAC. His bleating about negative campaigning was, given this historical perspective, farcical. His claim that Romney was a “liar” carried little heft—after all, Gingrich himself had recently displayed his penchant for prevarication, such as when he claimed he had been paid by Freddie Mac for performing duties as a “historian.”
But a presidential candidate scorned can be a dangerous thing. Gingrich has never had a self-esteem problem. His ego is supersized. And with his late-autumn jump in the polls, he, no doubt, was measuring himself for a crown. (Tiffany’s?) He all but declared his ascendancy was inevitable. Yet then that nasty super-PAC came along and…told the truth about Gingrich, in killer attack ads, behaving much as Gingrich had always counseled GOPers to act. In a 1978 address to College Republicans, before he was elected to the House, Gingrich declared, “I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty.” Well, if his goal back then was to nastify the GOP, he can proudly proclaim, “Mission Accomplished.”
It’s from a lefty magazine, admittedly, but it’s at least as plausible as the idea of Gingrich as an exponent of Catholic social teaching. Here and here are Mother Jones‘ take on Santorum’s chances. They’re fairly fair, except for the stupid summary of Santorum’s views in the third to last paragraph of the second.
By the way, readers interested in Catholic social teaching (which you’ll sometimes see referred to as “CST”) will want to read The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, also available as a book. It’s a very good summary of the subject, though at times a little quick or abstract in its explanations, and readers pursuing the subject will want to read the major encyclicals as well, starting with Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (here is a useful summary).
January 5th, 2012 | 7:46 am
The first and most foundational principle of Catholic social teaching is the right to life. In this, Newt Gingrich conforms better to our social teaching than most of your leftie “social teaching” mavens. If he further pursues economic development for the sake of the poor, primarily through free-market ideas, that does not mean he’s outside of Catholic social teaching–though many floggers of that teaching would have you believe that only government intervention qualifies. To me, a free-market approach to alleviating poverty makes the most sense, and is thus the most prudent.
It is true that Newt has many problems as a candidate, and it’s probably just as well that he’s out of the race. But let’s be careful how we apply our criticism–a sweeping statement that he doesn’t follow Catholic social teaching goes too far.
January 5th, 2012 | 10:25 am
But I didn’t make that sweeping statement. I said I don’t see much reason to believe he was affected by it, and this partly because his views haven’t substantially changed since he became a Catholic.
January 5th, 2012 | 11:38 am
I felt it was time to respond, in an appropriate forum, to the attacks on Newt Gingrich, which have revived in this current election cycle. First of all, I am no supporter of Newt’s Presidential compaign. I have been supporting Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum’s rise is a dream come true, since he is (and always has been) the best MAN in the field. Until now Santorum’s viability has been the problem. All that aside, Newt’s personal life has me skittish in his support. However, when Catholics begin to assess Newt’s ideas and inititiatives in light of Catholic Social Teaching, much education is necessary, especially in the recent modern political history of our country. When Newt became Speaker of the House of Representatives after the Contract With America, very little love was shown his movement by Catholic Social Justice machinery. The media’s character assasination of Newt and all the “horrible” things he was doing(and going to do) to poor people was merely echoed through our Chanceries. As one who has dedicated his professional and personal life to the Catholic Social Justice ethos, I was “on the ground” when some of Newt’s reforms were put through. Allow me to tell you what I saw, there, “on the ground”. By the mid-1990s the initial wave of the crack epidemic had washed through the general population and had settled (as these waves always do) to live forever in the marginalized community of the vulnerable. The mental health facility I worked at saw, on a monthly basis, all the local drug pushers outside our doors on the days when Social Security and SSI checks came in. When Newt’s Congress connected these benefits to drug and alcohol treatment programs, much was accomplished. When his Congress gave the Social Security Administration authority to insist that recipients with drug and alcohol histories have representative payees vetted by Social Security, the pushers left our doors. It’s very different, here on the ground today. Add to this the fact that the election of Newt’s Congress meant the end of the Clinton Administration’s attempts to frog-march us into Nationalized Health Care and I think we can say Newt did good service for his country. The defeat of Hilarycare and rise of welfare reform during Newt’s term served as blows for freedom, a good rarely remarked on by the Catholic Social Justice Industry. And, at the time, while the media cloaked all this under Newt’s “insensitivity to the poor”, he was speaking about the freedom and opportunity that must always be offered to the disadvantaged. I saw people take these opprtunities. Everyone, excepting the Democratic Party and the Catholic Social Justice Industry, know welfare reform to have been a success. It is depressing to see, as in the recent Obamacare deliberations, the Catholic Social Justice machinery (and even our Bishops) oblivious to the threats to freedom it poses. The Bishops took a noble stand in defense of Life, but seemed unaware of a citizen’s right of liberty. In closing, let me say that accusations of Newt’s nastiness must always be balanced by the single most deceitful campaign waged against a political figure in my lifetime. We heard of the “Gingrich Who Stole Christmas”, how he shut down the government (when only a President can) put homeless in the street, etc. I am not supporting him now, nor do I see myself doing so (unless he is the Republican nominee), and I see why some conservatives do not want him. Catholic critics, however, have a habit of naively accepting political caricatures promoted by a loathing media.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact