Newt Gingrich, master of the conservative id (Chris Keane/Reuters)
I am really going to enjoy Newt Gingrich's new spot as the Republican Not-Mitt. Gingrich is a consummate politician, which is the politically acceptable way to say that someone is an unprincipled, pandering liar who you should not trust any farther than you can throw. It does not matter what he believes, and his entire demeanor reflects his self-assuredness on that point: What matters is that he says the right things in the right circumstances, and then properly assails anyone who dares to later point out suspicious inconsistencies or irrationalities in any of it.
Mitt Romney changes his beliefs to fit the political climate, which is the amateur's way to do it. Newt, the professional, never truly believes in anything in the first place. That is why, when he comes out with one of his ridiculous, outlandish statements about how he as president would ignore the courts, or cut the electricity to the offices of the Ninth Circuit, or how his cruise ship vacation off the coast of Greece really taught him a lot about the Greek economy, nobody really challenges him on the specifics. The specifics don't matter: Everybody knows Newt does not think anything through, but is instead a nearly robotic vehicle for dispensing snippets of the conservative far-right id.
That does not mean Newt would not follow through on some of his crazy notions, if by some miracle of the electorate he was once again put in a position of power, but if he did it would not be because of some deep-seated internal commitment to conservatism. It would be because a poll told him to, and Frank Luntz tested the language, and because Newt Gingrich had nothing better to do that day. He can both condemn adultery and happily partake in it, and if you point that out, it's because you are an asshole. He can both condemn Freddie Mac and contract with them to provide unspecified, baffling "services," and if that doesn't make sense to you it is only because you lack the mental facilities to understand his genius.
One of Newt's latest forays into the conservative cave of nuttery is this nugget, in defense of one of his past nutty positions:
MOODY: In 1996, you introduced a bill that would have given the death penalty to drug smugglers. Do you still stand by that?
GINGRICH: I think if you are, for example, the leader of a cartel, sure. Look at the level of violence they’ve done to society. You can either be in the Ron Paul tradition and say there’s nothing wrong with heroin and cocaine or you can be in the tradition that says, ‘These kind of addictive drugs are terrible, they deprive you of full citizenship and they lead you to a dependency which is antithetical to being an American.’ If you’re serious about the latter view, then we need to think through a strategy that makes it radically less likely that we’re going to have drugs in this country. Places like Singapore have been the most successful at doing that. They’ve been very draconian. And they have communicated with great intention that they intend to stop drugs from coming into their country.
As Think Progress points out, imposing the death penalty for drug smuggling would be unconstitutional, and it seems every bit as disturbing to hold up as your model Singapore, a country that imposes the death penalty for mere drug possession and which is known worldwide for, as Newt puts it, "draconian" law. But it sounds good to the most conservative conservatives, folks who would rather have authoritarianism than constitutionalism and who get positively giddy whenever talk of drastic punishments is bandied about (torture? how bold!), and Newt is all about titillating that conservative base. He whores freely and happily, and will do so again tomorrow, and the next day, and so on. Whatever the issue, you can bet that Newt will be on whatever side of it he thinks the majority of the base is already on.
On the specific notion of imposing the death penalty for drug trafficking, however, it seems tough-on-crime conservatives always draw rather odd distinctions in the crimes they choose to be tough-on. The breakdown is always a bit obvious: If it is a white collar crime that they or someone they know is likely to be convicted of, such as insider trading, bribery, fraud, money laundering or the like, they are not in much of a hurry to throw the book at offenders. Drug possession, though (especially certain drugs, but not others?) Three-strikes laws that trigger upon theft of a pizza slice? Bring the hammer down.
I am against the death penalty. It makes no economic sense (and no, applying it more haphazardly in an effort to reduce costs does not seem an appropriate solution), it forecloses all possibility of future redemption (a presumptuous thing, for a supposedly "Christian" nation to take upon themselves), and killing for mere sense of revenge (sorry, "justice") is hardly the mark of a civilized society. Still, though, I would be sorely tempted to give it the old college try if we were to begin applying it equally to white collar and blue collar crimes. The flimsy justification offered for endorsing the death penalty for selling drugs is that there is violence associated with selling drugs: Well, true enough, but espionage or other anti-government activities are also on the current list of things for which America can apply the death penalty, and one could certainly argue that bribery or influence-peddling is a crime against the state.
What would happen, then, if we just let our death penalty freak flag fly, and declared that from now on, the bribery of public officials ought to be punished by lethal injection? It would certainly put a new thrill into lobbyist-funded golfing trips to Scotland. If lying to Congress was a death penalty crime (and if we actually prosecuted it, when the captains of industry or think-tank heads marched into hearings to lie their fool heads off), that would make all of those hearings much more interesting. Think congressional busywork meets Running Man.
Does the death penalty deter crime? I have no idea. But if we are to test it, then let us test it not in the case of desperate, impoverished men who feel they have no other choice—let us test whether wealthy, well-off financial titans are less likely to commit vicious, economy-crushing crimes against their clients and fellow businessmen if the penalty for doing so was a firing squad. Now that would test whether or not it truly acted as deterrent. Line up the bankers responsible for Citigroup's recent alleged derivatives fraud, and shoot them dead: Would that at long last end our War on Financial Fraud?
What's that? There is no War on Financial Fraud? Well, screw that. I think if we're going to raid California's medical marijuana dispensaries, we should at least get the balance of a few SWAT-led raids into Citigroup or Goldman Sachs. I think the question of which of those two things has led to more misery for more people has been amply answered at this point.
I don't know. I do think the whole premise of putting people to death "for justice" is a preposterous one, but at the very least if we are going to implement a stupid idea we should be as consistent as possible about it. From Enron traders to Bernie Madoff to Abramoff to DeLay, we could stuff death row to the gills if we were so inclined (and given the clout of for-profit prisons in this country, I'd say we're inclined).
But it is the effect on the titans of Wall Street, as well as on a passel of our most prominent politicians, that would be most fascinating. Our political officials are not very good about toughening up punishments for the sorts of things that they themselves might engage in. We have to count ourselves lucky that there are bribery laws at all, and laws on influence peddling, tit-for-tat legislation, lobbyist gifts and other unsubtle methods of bribery are as watered-down as they can possibly be while still holding any shape at all. The most fantastic and egregious Wall Street crimes are not crimes at all, even when they are crimes, and if you understand the logic behind that particular statement you may be qualified to work for the S.E.C., which regularly polices those crimes by declaring that, upon payment of a small fee, those things will be summarily ignored.
I suppose it is a bad idea. A really bad idea, in fact: Fine, I admit it. It is just that whenever Newt Gingrich or similar figures talk about being tough on issues of crime and punishment, I have the irresistible urge to lock them all up and throw away the key. You know—for America.