Gingrich would be the better candidate to face in an election for character issues and of course due in part to the fact that the 19th amendment to the constitution practically bars Gingrich from ever becoming president. But yet, there are downsides.
And the downside is a real Fear for Our Country:
Yes, an unstable demagogue should be a lot easier for Obama to beat than a candidate who'd make a plausible president -- e.g., judging by past work product, Romney. But in a two-party system, either party nominating an unstable demagogue is a danger to democracy, both because any incumbent can be beat if economic conditions are bad enough or if catastrophe strikes, and because the takeover of one major party by extremists, reactionaries and hatemongers means we are always on the knife's edge. The counter-argument, often expressed by Sullivan, is that only by electing an extremist and getting its clock cleaned can a party submerged in its own ideology be dragged back to the center. That may have worked in the case of Goldwater. But Goldwater was a sober statesman compared to Gingrich, Perry, Palin.
It may be that it is better to run against Romney than facing the risk of President Newt. For the sake of the Republic that is.
0 comments:
Post a Comment