WINNING THE FUTURE

Reviewed 1/16/2006

Winning the Future, by Newt Gingrich

WINNING THE FUTURE
A 21st Century Contract with America
Newt Gingrich
Washington, DC: Regnery, Inc, 2005

Rating:

3.0

Fair

ISBN 0-89526-042-5 243pp. HC $27.95

Now, as to the specific proposals it contains:

Section 3 of the Introduction is "Politics as History". In it, Newt writes, "By insisting on 'politics as history', President Reagan achieved historic goals that virtually no one could have predicted in 1980. For our generation to be successful, we need a similar grassroots movement that demands profound change to defeat fundamental threats to our way of life. This movement has to be focused on values, on solutions, and on telling the truth even when it is controversial. The purpose of this book is to outline the case for such a movement, a 21st Century Contract with America." (Highlight added)

This is all very well, though I read the highlighted portion as "to defeat threats to our fundamentalist way of life." But what are the specific measures Newt proposes to implement this "profound change"? Let's look at some.

First, we must defeat the radical wing of Islam as represented by al Qaeda and its affiliated terrorist groups, the Wahabbi sect, and terror-sponsoring Islamic states.

– Page 2

This is commendable, but a very tall order. Does he mean our military should attack Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other Arab states? It's already stretched too thin. If not that, what?

The Clinton administration consistently dealt with terrorism as a criminal matter. President George W. Bush recognized immediately that the 9/11 attack was an act of war and not the scene of a crime. He responded with military force—not detectives.

– Page 6

First of all, 9/11 was not on Clinton's watch. Implying he would respond to it the same way he did to smaller, offshore terrorist actions is disingenuous. Gingrich also neglects Clinton's tough response to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (perpetrated by two white, nominally Christian, American men.) Second, military force vs. detective work is a false dichotomy; Bush would have been guilty of negligence if he had not ordered detective work done at the Pentagon and WTC, in collaboration with local personnel.

For many people on the American and international Left, there is almost no provocation that would justify an aggressive American military effort overseas. If Hitler was not evil enough to justify war in some people's minds, we should not be surprised that coexistence with Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il strikes them as reasonable.

For everyone else, the practical question is simple: How do we best protect America? President George W. Bush has rightly taken the position that we have ample proof of who our enemies are and we should prevent their attacks and pre-empt their plans.

Can we rely on our historic allies to support us? In particular, will France—the leader of the European Union—support us?

The Left says that with better diplomacy, we could have had France by our side in Iraq. But this ignores France's long history of making profits from the regime of Saddam Hussein."

French President Jacques Chirac pushed very hard for French economic interests in Iraq, even when Iraq was under United Nations sanctions. Banque National de Paris-Paribas was the sole bank administering the $64 billion United Nations "Oil for Food" program without public accounting or scrutiny. The "Oil for Food" scandal (in which at least $21.3 billion was estimated stolen from the Iraqi people) implicates a number of French business figures. Selfishness and a narrow, petty definition of French politics seem to be the hallmarks of French policies in the Middle East.

– Page 14

Ah, yes: president Bush's "ample proof of who our enemies are" and his vaunted countermeasures. So far, only one top administration official has had the integrity to talk straight about his part in the Iraq War.

I'm still learning about the Oil for Food scandal. It's big, and dirty. Clearly, French companies deserve a large portion of whoopass for their involvement, which by all accounts was greatest. But, pending discovery of the involvement of France's leaders, it makes little sense to stop treating France as an ally. And blaming them ignores the fault attendant to Bush's unilateral pre-emptive invasion.

WHY NOT RELY ON THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE WORLD COURT? The World Court today is chaired by a Chinese judge whose country is a totalitarian society repressively occupying Tibet, refusing to hold open elections in Hong Kong, and threatening to invade Taiwan. In 2003, Libya, which was ruled by the dictator Muammar Qadhafi, became chairman of the Human Rights Commission. In 2004, the United Nations included Sudan on the Human Rights Commission even though its Islamist dictatorship is accused of murdering thousands of Africans, fostering a starvation policy that could kill a million more Africans this year, and that has been responsible for what Secretary General Kofi Annan says is the biggest humanitarian crisis on the planet.

The first time the United Nations facilities in Iraq were bombed, the United Nations simply fled the country and gave up its responsibilities. The U.N. was impotent in East Timor in the face of massacres of Christian Timorese by the Indonesians. It was the Australian Army that unilaterally established order and protected innocent people from being massacred. There is no evidence that the U.N. has been successful in creating safety for people except when the major powers intervened. Either the United States leads or the hard things do not get done."

– Page 15

Let's take these points one by one.

Next, Newt runs down a long list of things that went wrong in our occupation of Iraq without once mentioning or even implying that the Bush administration might bear any shred of blame. All of what I've covered so far leads me to one conclusion: this is not history as politics, it's politics as history — that is, spin.

But let's move to a different topic: Environment and Energy (Chapter 13) Lots of good ideas here. But then,

Kyoto is a bad treaty. It is bad for the environment and it is bad for America. It sets standards that will require massive investments by the United States but virtually no investments by other countries. The Senate was right when it voted unanimously against the treaty. We should insist on revisiting the entire Kyoto process and resolutely reject efforts to force us into an anti-American, environmentally failed treaty.

– Page 163

Many have pointed out that the U.S. produces 25% of the world's CO2. Developing nations impose far smaller burdens of this greenhouse gas. It is fair that they should have less responsibility for controlling it. Newt also forgets that the Kyoto process is ongoing; other nations can be brought in, targets can be lowered (or raised), details adjusted. Also, rejecting Kyoto is part of a pattern of the Bush administration rejecting most international agreements. Finally, the size of the economic impact of Kyoto on us is debatable.

He goes on to muddy the scientific waters thus:

The world's climate has changed in the past with sudden speed and dramatic impact. Global warming may happen. On the other hand it is possible Europe will experience another ice age. The Norwegian politicians who worry much about global warming (the politically correct thing to do even in a cold country that would demonstrably benefit from a warmer climate) may suddenly find themselves migrating south if a new interim ice age were to happen. This point is politically incorrect but the history and science of climate change is {sic} far more complex and uncertain than the politically driven hysteria of scientists who sign on to ads about a topic for which they have no scientific proof.

– Page 163

The trouble with this is that global warming may cause an ice age in Europe — by disrupting the Gulf Stream with enormous quantities of fresh water melted off the Greenland ice cap. Some scientists think they see signs of this happening already. It is true that the history and science of climate change are complex, and scientists will be puzzling out the details for some time to come. What that has to do with "politically driven hysteria" except as a politically driven dig at "The Left", I have no idea. Is there scientific evidence that global warming is occurring? Yes, more and more every day. Carbon dioxide is building up. Average temperature is rising. Mountain glaciers are retreating. Permafrost is melting. Oil is running out. In such circumstances, denigrating the science and denying the need for prudent action is worse than counterproductive; it is dangerous. We don't need a crash program. We do need to get serious about cutting CO2 output and petroleum input.

To its credit, the Bush administration has approached energy environmentalism the right way, including using public-private partnerships that balance economic costs and environmental gain.

– Page 165

The public-private partnerships that I am aware of the Bush administration setting up are voluntary on the part of the private sector. Small wonder they accomplish little environmental cleanup. And Newt says not a word about the way the Bush administration allowed Superfund to dry up.

Finally, it is time for an honest debate about drilling and producing in places like Alaska, our national forests, and off the coast of scenic areas. The Left uses scare tactics from a different era to block environmentally sound production of raw materials. Three standards should break through this deadlock. First, scientists of impeccable background should help set the standards for sustaining the environment in sensitive areas, and any company entering the areas should be bonded to meet these standards. Second, the public should be informed about new methods of production that can meet environmental standards, and any development should be only with those new methods. Third, a percentage of the revenues from resources generated in environmentally sensitive areas should be dedicated to environmental activities including biodiversity sustainment, land acquisition, and environmental cleanups in places where there are no private resources that can be used to clean up past problems.

– Pages 166-7

Let's start by putting some wells off the coast of scenic Kennebunkport, Maine. Speaking of honest debate, I thought that's what was happening with respect to ANWR. Drilling opponents point out that it contains a six-month supply of oil, and suggest that honest efforts at conservation can effectively replace that supply without the cost and environmental risk of putting wells in a wildlife refuge. Pressure to drill, I think, comes from Senator Ted Stevens, who wants to maintain the grants to every Alaskan constituent that came from the fields at Valdez until he retires. The rest of it sounds good, but again I have to ask what incentive the Republican Party has to divert revenues from production in environmentally sensitive areas when its track record is one of letting both extraction companies and fuel-consumption facilities (e.g. power plants) get away with no impact.

Chapter 3 is "The Centrality of Our Creator in Defining America". It begins thus (page 43):

There is no attack on American culture more deadly and historically more dishonest than the secular Left's unending war against God in America's public life. For me, the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to rule unconstitutional the phrase "one nation under God" was the final straw. A court that would destroy a Pledge of Allegiance adopted by the Congress, signed by the president (Eisenhower), and supported by 91 percent of the American people is a court that is clearly out of step with an America that understands that our rights come from God, which is why no government—or court—can justly take them away from us.

– Page 43

Actually, this is perhaps the best chapter in the book. Newt through considerable research has assembled a host or references to God in political documents from the founding fathers forward, and he presents it with impressive passion. He's even developed a walking tour of Washington, DC by which the many religious inscriptions and symbols on public buildings and monuments may be viewed. (It's at the back of the book.) At its end, he declares:

The two primary battlefields of this cultural struggle are the courts and the classrooms. Those are the arenas in which the secular Left has imposed change against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Americans. Those are the arenas in which believing in the Founding Fathers and the classic interpretation of the Constitution can be disastrous to a career and lead to social ostracism.

– Page 56

This is overblown rhetoric, and also wrong on substance. Classrooms are mainly the recipient of changes wrought on the battlefields of the courts, the churches, and the Congress. Newt's primary point is also wrong: The U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation.

Last topic, "judicial supremacy". Newt addresses this in Chapter 4, Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution:

The defeat of judicial supremacy and a return to popular constitutionalism and a true balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches will be one of the most intense and difficult struggles of our lifetime. It is also absolutely unavoidable if we are going to retain our freedoms and our identity as Americans.

Over the last fifty years the Supreme Court has become a permanent constitutional convention in which the whims of five appointed lawyers have rewritten the meaning of the Constitution. Under this new all-powerful model of the Court, and by extension the trailbreaking Ninth Circuit Court, the Constitution and the law can be redefined with no boundaries.

– Page 57

He describes his efforts as Speaker to shepherd a balanced budget amendment through the House. Then:

Yet all this effort is matched by a 5 to 4 vote on the Supreme Court. If five justices decide we cannot say "one nation under God", cannot pray at graduation, and cannot criticize politicians with campaign ads just before an election, then we lose those rights. If they decide that child pornography on the Internet is protected by free speech (unlike prayer and political speech) that becomes the law of the land. This power grab by the Court is a modern phenomenon and a dramatic break from all previous American history."

– Page 58

No, that's just away the system has always worked. A majority on the court determines the law of the land, unless and until the Congress overturns its decision. And the Congress has often enacted laws which were unconstitutional. I'm not sure what Newt's driving at when he says "we [...] cannot criticize politicians with campaign ads just before an election." That's not prohibited unless a church or its pastor is doing it. (Actually, that must be just what he is getting at. He doesn't want the courts to uphold the Fourth Amendment.)

He goes on to list a series of cases decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Case Year Result Rev
* Reversed by Supreme Court.
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow 2002 Declared using the phrase "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional.  
Silveira v. Lockyer 2002 Voided the individual right to keep and bear arms, as claimed by many to reside in the second amendment.  
Andrade v. Attorney General of California 2001 Declared the California three-strikes law unconstitutional. *
Summerlin v. Stewart 2003 Made retroactive the right of defendants in capital cases to a jury trial, vs. a judge, thus voiding approximately 100 death penalties. *
Rucker v. Davis 2001 Declared that drug activity by one family member should not cause eviction of the whole family if they are unaware of said activity. *
Compassion in Dying v. Washington 1995 Said there is a constitutional right to assisted suicide. *
U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative 1999 Established a medical exemption to the Controlled Substances Act. *
Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English 1995 On First Amendment grounds, voided the AZ amendment requiring all state business to be conducted in English.  

His point? This:

When a court is reversed this often, it clearly fails to meet the 'good behavior' test of the Constitution—a narrow version of the Judiciary Act of 1802 by which the Jeffersonians simply disestablished a majority of the existing federal circuit judges. The good behavior test should be enforced. It would certainly focus the Ninth Circuit's attention on survival rather than radicalism. Yet far from wanting the court to pull back or become more cautious, many on the Left want the court to take on bigger and bigger portions of the duties that were historically part of the legislative and executive branches.

– page 60

The picture he paints is one of the Supreme Court overturning most or many decisions of the Ninth Circuit Court. (Funny; I would have guessed he thought they were allies.) To accept this as valid, we would have to believe that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided only eight cases in those years. That is patently absurd, as a search of its Opinion Archive will quickly show. I found 94 entries just for December 2002. No, what Newt has done is to cherry-pick some cases he cares about. His selections are instructive. Evidently he objects to medical marijuana, assisted suicide, accused murderers being tried by juries, and would like to see families evicted if, even unknown to them, one family member becomes involved with drugs. (And of course he endorses the old standbys: Bearing arms and breathing prayers.)

The fact that the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit2 in these five instances does not mollify him regarding it. He feels that, beginning with the Warren Court in the 1950s, the "lawyer class" have been engaged in a "grand-scale power grab". He analyzes a series of cases to demonstrate the existence of this power grab and the resulting "judicial supremacy". I didn't read through all that. His proposed remedy is, first, that Americans should ask Congress to "pass a law insisting on the centrality of 'our Creator' in defining American rights, the legitimacy of appeals to God 'in public places', and the absolute rejection of judicial supremacy as a violation of the Constitution's balance of powers." If this were to happen, it would nullify the federal courts since, logically, the absolute opposite of supremacy is subservience. I prefer the present situation, which is more balanced. Claims of "judicial supremacy" and "judicial activism" from the right merely mean that someone has handed down a ruling they dislike. Indeed, as Catherine Crier shows, they are the most fervent practitioners of "judicial activism."

About the Oil-for-Food Scandal

1 The 18 judges are elected by the UN General Assembly, and the president is elected for a one-year term by the judges. The president's job is mainly administrative.
2 The Ninth Circuit is the largest of the 13 federal circuits and includes all federal courts in California, Oregon, and Washington (the "Left Coast") as well as Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit is responsible for hearing challenges to decisions of all these lower courts.
Valid CSS! Valid HTML 4.01 Strict To contact Chris Winter, send email to this address.
Copyright © 2006-2014 Christopher P. Winter. All rights reserved.
This page was last modified on 9 June 2014.