Washington – Is Newt Gingrich just pretending to have lost his mind, or has he actually gone around the bend?
His lunacy certainly seems genuine enough. It’s one thing to be a rhetorical bomb-thrower, as Gingrich has long fancied himself, and another to lob damp squibs of pure nonsense into the fray. The man’s contributions to the public discourse have become increasingly unhinged.
The latest example comes in an interview with the conservative website National Review Online. Unsurprisingly, he was criticizing President Obama. Bizarrely, according to the website, he said the following: “What if (Obama) is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together (his actions)?” According to Newt, this is “the most accurate, predictive model” for the president’s actions, or policies, or something.
What in the world is “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior” supposed to mean? That Obama is waging a secret campaign to free us from the yoke of British oppression?
In fairness to Gingrich, he wasn’t being original. He was speaking in praise of a big gob of gibberish written in Forbes by conservative “intellectual” Dinesh D’Souza. In the piece — much of it strikingly lazy — D’Souza argues that Obama somehow absorbed a fully elaborated, frozen-in-time, anti-colonial worldview from his Kenyan father. Who left the family when the future president was 2.
Well, we knew Obama was precocious. But if he was so absorbed with the study of colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism and all the other isms, when did he have time to learn to go potty?
D’Souza goes on to froth and foam like one of those conspiracy theorists who believe the CIA is controlling our brain waves. Suffice it to say that the author believes it remarkable that there has been “virtually no reporting” on an article that Obama’s father — who saw his son once more in his life, when “Barry” was 10 — wrote in an obscure journal in 1965. I’m thinking that the Da Vinci Code might be in there somewhere, too.
Yet Gingrich finds this claptrap a “stunning insight” — or pretends that he does.
The rational explanation is that Gingrich seized on the “programmed by his absent father” thesis as a way of furthering the “birther” narrative — the paranoid fantasy that Obama is foreign, exotic, alien, somehow not American. So what if D’Souza’s piece makes assertion after assertion that is plainly, demonstrably unsupported? Just throw it out there, and maybe a few gullible souls will believe it.
But this was just the latest offering from Gingrich that vaulted the barrier between provocative and crazy. It started last year during the confirmation hearings for Justice Sonia Sotomayor, when he said that her innocuous “wise Latina” remark proved she was a “racist.” He made the same lightning-quick allegation of racism against Shirley Sherrod — before a full hearing of her remarks showed that she was actually speaking against racism. And then Gingrich’s rhetorical insanity reached a new high, or a new low, last month when he accused supporters of the Lower Manhattan mosque of “triumphalism” and compared them to the Nazis.
It has been suggested that perhaps Gingrich, who is thinking of running for president, is trying to lure attention away from a recent unflattering profile in Esquire — the one that charts his three marriages in excruciating, and embarrassing, detail. But it hardly furthers his ambitions to pretend to be so nuts.
And there’s a thread that connects his outbursts: They all fit into the idea that American democracy — indeed, the whole Anglo-American-Judeo-Christian enterprise — is under attack in a titanic clash of civilizations. In this view, we are threatened most acutely by the Islamic civilization. But we must also be on guard against the “Sinic” civilization of China, the “Hindu” civilization of India, and assorted others. This analysis was developed by Samuel P. Huntington, a Harvard professor who died in 2008 — and who said he never intended his work to be read as a battle plan.
Gingrich seems to believe that our culture and values are also threatened from within — by black and brown people who demand that they, too, be given a voice in defining that culture and those values. He really needs to get out more. But, hey, it’s a free country. If he wants, Gingrich can imagine himself a retired British colonel in 1963, harrumphing in his armchair about who lost Kenya. A diverse and multicultural America has long since moved on.
Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.
(c) 2010, Washington Post Writers Group
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.