I know that statement will probably confuse many of my conservative friends, but it shouldn't. I have expressed my distaste more than once with conservatives who vote for candidates they consider "electable" instead of candidates they consider to be truly conservative. Newt Gingrich currently appears to be electable. His record, however, as I explored a few days ago, is not quite as conservative as he would like us to think. And constantly referring to himself as a "Theodore Roosevelt Republican" or a "Realpolitik Wilsonian" only further his progressive appearance. The former Speaker, as I have said before, is a brilliant man. It is highly unlikely that the implications of such statements have escaped him.
I have heard fellow conservatives say that they like Newt Gingrich regardless, and that if we manage to gain a majority in the Senate (and keep the majority in the House) we could easily reign in his progressive tendencies. But what does it say about conservatives if we are willing to give our voices to someone who will only speak our language IF we can manage to keep him on a leash? And what do we really expect Gingrich to do if (God forbid) we DON'T get that Senate majority in November of 2012?
What conservatives are effectively saying is that they want to buy a boat, and they don't care that the boat has a hole in it. They are banking on always having enough friends on hand to help them bail it out to keep it from sinking. With his big government solutions to small government problems, Gingrich is drilling holes in the boat. As he drills them, he carefully explains why the holes are helping to facilitate emptying the water, and then reassures us that as long as we keep bailing faster than he can drill we will be all right.
Ron Paul's boat doesn't have holes. And Ron Paul is not in the business of drilling them. His boat may be headed in a course that is slightly askew, but course can be corrected more easily than a boat can be unsunk. And the beauty of it is that we don't have to depend on the election of 2012 to give us a majority to keep Ron Paul in check. There would have to be a major upset in every House and Senate election for us to get a Congress that would NOT keep Ron Paul on a short leash.
But the upshot is this: I truly hate Ron Paul's foreign policy. I think it is absolutely wrong and dangerous for America. I believe that it places us at a much greater risk at the hands of other nations. But Newt Gingrich's record suggests that if he is allowed to implement his progressive public policies on a grander scale, he would place America in greater danger of being crushed under the weight of our own government.
Samuel Adams saw it coming...
"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security."And a Gingrich Presidency would surely bring a continuation of the dissolution of principles - starting with those who vote for him when there may be a more conservative candidate in the mix.