Newt Gingrich has reached a new low, and that is hard for him to do.
So begins Charles Blow in
this New York Times column which I assure you is a must read.
He notes Gingrich's remarks about poor children, saying "Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works." Actually, the full statement by Gingrich is offensive, far more than having poor children do janitorial work in schools. Blow provides the complete statement, then says bluntly
This statement isn’t only cruel and, broadly speaking, incorrect, it’s mind-numbingly tone-deaf at a time when poverty is rising in this country. He comes across as a callous Dickensian character in his attitude toward America’s most vulnerable — our poor children. This is the kind of statement that shines light on the soul of a man and shows how dark it is.
shines light on the soul of a man and shows how dark it is - but then, most of the people here probably knew that already, right?
But there's more . . .
As will surprise no one who has ever paid attention to Gingrich (and thereby wasted more than a few brain cells), Gingrich often makes factually inaccurate statements, whether because he simply does not know or - as seems likely given his history - he does not care and will say whatever he thinks will gain him advantage, regardless of how inaccurate his statements. Blow takes him to task on his "facts" - you will want to read that.
After a thorough debunking of the "factual" basis for Gingrich's bloviating, Blow writes forcefully
Lastly, Gingrich vastly overreaches by suggesting that a lack of money universally correlates to a lack of morals. Yes, poverty presents increased risk factors for crime. But, encouragingly, data show that even as more Americans have fallen into poverty in recent years, the crime rate over all — and, specifically, among juveniles — has dropped.
If you follow the link in the blockquote, you will go to a page at the FBI which begins
According to the figures released today by the FBI, the estimated number of violent crimes in 2010 declined for the fourth consecutive year. Property crimes also decreased, marking this the eighth straight year that the collective estimates for these offenses declined.
If you walk through the links at the FBI, you will eventually get to data of arrests by age, and read
Arrests of juveniles for all offenses decreased 9.7 percent in 2010 when compared with the 2009 number; arrests of adults declined 3.7 percent.
Arrests of juveniles for all offenses decreased 9.7 percent in 2010 when compared with the 2009 number
Gingrich may have a Ph. D. in history, but that does not mean one can trust the "factual" assertions he makes. Given that his "facts" are inaccurate, or at best selective, the broad and "bold" statements he makes, his "big ideas" are big only because they are inflated with hot air.
But now Gingrich is aiming his bloviations at those with no voice, children in poor families and neighborhoods, those upon whom too many things (No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top) are already being imposed while the services they need to bring them even close to the neighborhood of equal opportunity are being reduced or eliminated. If such as work ethic is so good, and if cleaning school bathrooms is not such a horrible idea, why is Newt not suggesting that as a requirement for all students in schools receiving federal aid? Could it be because he knows the pushback he would get from white suburban parents? Does not that also indicate that Gingrich is using a dog whistle about other people's children, meaning largely children of color, and that is it their fault for being born to parents who don't do well enough to properly care for them - and yes, that too is racially coded language, designed to appeal both to the racist elements among Republican primary voters and to a specific narrow perspective derived from the double presdestinarianism found in Calvinist thinking. Oddly enough, Gingrich converted to the Catholicism of his third (current) wife, but such an attitude is not part of Catholic thinking or teaching.
The timing of Gingrich's rise to the top of polls among Republicans makes it increasingly likely he could be the Republican nominee, although his lack of infrastructure could hurt him in a primary state like Iowa, although with several weeks, the implied support from Fox News, and an increase in funds accompanying his rise in the polls, he still looks like the probable winner in Iowa, and it is still possible that Romney might not even finish 3rd. In such a case, the momentum Gingrich would have going into NH, which is a primary state, would give him a real shot at winning there, which if it happened would destroy flipflop Mitt - ironic, given that Gingrich has almost as many flipflops, often on exactly the same issues.
Read Blow's piece. I gave you his first link, which I repeat:
Newt Gingrich has reached a new low, and that is hard for him to do.
Then there is his last line, which really puts things in context:
“Facts” are not Gingrich’s forte. Yet he is now the Republican front-runner. It just goes to show how bankrupt of compassion and allergic to accuracy that party is becoming.
I would say Blow's observations are quite on target. All that remains to be seen is whether that will be sufficient to ensure continued Democratic control of the Executive Branch.