The second reason is that many conservatives are deeply invested, not just politically but also intellectually, in the defense of the kinds of explicitly racist power arrangements that the Project criticizes. Take Gingrich, who represented a largely white suburban Atlanta district that was the direct beneficiary of the transit-based segregation that the historian Kevin Kruse writes about in his essay.
Gingrich holds a PhD in history from Tulane University; his dissertation was a full-throated defense of the infamously brutal Belgian colonial record in Congo. The third reason is that conservatives revere history as a source of incontestable authority, as opposed to a storehouse of fallible human experience, susceptible to analysis and critique.
This manifests itself in a variety of ways. There is the legal doctrine of originalism, a more or less uniquely American form of legal doctrine that interprets constitutional matters solely through the lens of what the adjudicator concludes the original drafters of the U. Constitution meant. Yet Southern conservatives in the s complained that the Reconstruction amendments, passed by Congress and ratified by the states in the s, are invalid or otherwise unconstitutional because the Southern states at the time were subject to military occupation and black political rule.
If the land in which the United States was founded has been tainted by racism since the s and everything derived therefrom is therefore tainted, then the US is illegitimate, the constitution is illegitimate, and revolution is the answer —. What Weingarten, Shapiro, and Erickson share is a fundamental belief not so much in actual history as in national myths: they view them as a necessary component of American national unity.
The long and ongoing struggle to turn the ideals of America into reality is the greatest unifier of all. Many conservative critics have completely missed the point, even when it seems they are just on the cusp of getting it. It is difficult to imagine a more tortured accusation. It is undeniably a lie that those ideals were ever applied to the majority of people living in the land that would become America in And that the long and ongoing struggle to turn that aspiration into reality is the greatest unifier of all. You might have noticed the absence of paywalls at Boston Review.
We are committed to staying free for all our readers. Now we are going one step further to become completely ad-free. This means you will always be able to read us without roadblocks or barriers to entry. It also means that we count on you, our readers, for support.
If you like what you read here, help us keep it free for everyone by making a donation. No amount is too small. You will be helping us cultivate a public sphere that honors pluralism of thought for a diverse and discerning public. Support Boston Review. Surveying Trumpland with Cedric Robinson.
Robin D. The life of the cosmopolitan, who puts right before country, and universal reason before the symbols of national belonging, need not be boring, flat, or lacking in love. Martha C. The violent theft of land and capital is at the core of the U. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. The median lifespan of a national constitution is roughly the life expectancy of a Great Dane.
Why has the U. Constitution endured? Henry Farrell, Bruce Schneier. Mark Tseng-Putterman.
Newt Gingrich Goes to the Congo | Mother Jones
Toussaint Losier , William J. Barber II. Noam Chomsky , Scott Casleton. Rosie Gillies , Boston Review. Joshua Cohen , Corey Robin. Make a tax-deductible donation today. There are many stories about Gingrich's handling of the divorce which reflect unfavorably on him. I'm ignoring most of them. I don't have the WSJ story at hand, but I'm sure that it included a denial by Gingrich, and as I recall Gingrich has denied this quote several times.
If someone could add Gingrich's denial, that would improve this article. Regardless of whether this quote is true or not is irrelevant, the real issue here is that the neutrality of this article is jeopardized by needless, negative statements. This quote could only be described as needless and negative. It is irrelevant to Newt Gingrich the man and to his political career if one no name journalist at the WSJ called his wife unatractive and was blatantly rude about her illness. The fact that the WSJ has mentioned that in major news stories is a result of their attempt to credit themselves with following the man through his career, while they in reality did nothing of the sort.
The journalist was quoting Newt. And, his well known mistreatment of his first wife his high school teacher is very relevant to voters' assessment of "Newt the man. That same publication includes an article with a denial. If you include this quote it clearly shows a bias to promote a minor statement with ambiguous references and questionable truth in a persons history to a high level of significance.
They've also realized he'd be terrible in a general election , salon. I find it odd that the article does not contain any of Gingrich's anti-gay statements etc. There should be an entire section detailing how this has been a continuous strand in Gingrich's politics and public statements. Okay, I can't trace his being anti-gay until earlier than , but here is what I could find doing a quick online search, and I think that justifies a section on this topic in the entry:. Gray, Jerry.
March 8, April 4, March 12, Gingrich thinks homosexuality needs to be dealt with like alcoholism: just tolerated; families can only be heterosexual. Seelye, Katharine Q. March 6, Gingrich against lifting the ban on gays in the military: Clymer, Adam. January 27, Sink, Justin. December 15, Gingrich against gay marriage and glitter-bombing: Vinciguerra, Thomas.
August 27, Gingrich for maintaining ban on gays in the military: Cooper, Kenneth J. Feb 9, Gingrich referred to as someone who endorses discrimination against gays and lesbians in published statements. Merida, Kevin; Cooper, Kenneth J. Oct 22, Nov 24, Gingrich's office source of "smear campaign" against Tom Foley: Kurtz, Howard. Feb 26, Also on Tom Foley smear campaign: Beers, David. On Bill O'Reilly, Gingrich says he things there's gay and secular fascism in the US: "Gingrich: '[T]here is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us'.
November 17, March 28, Gingrich against adoption by gay or lesbian couples: Waller, Douglas. April 15, If I may, I would like to offer some further suggestions to improve the clarity and neutrality of this article. In particular, there are some improvements that I think can be made to the " Government shutdown " section. As I have mentioned in previous requests, I wish to avoid COI editing, so would ask that other editors provide feedback to reach consensus on these suggestions, or make the changes if there is agreement now.
This role in the House banking scandal should be more clearly highlighted or it shows bias. Old text:. Gingrich and others in the House, including the newly minted Gang of Seven, railed against what they saw as ethical lapses under Democratic control for almost 40 years. The House banking scandal and Congressional Post Office scandal were emblems of the exposed corruption. While most of the members, including Gingrich, did not break any laws, 22 other members 18 Democrat were brought up on ethics charges for over 11, bounced checks in 39 months.
Source 63 does not seem like a credible source of information. It certainly isn't seem neutral at all--the top of the page declares that Gingrich "is running for president in on a Platform of Lies. I found a USA Today article that was written after it was added, but I think it's likely that the quote was sourced from Wikipedia itself and as such should not be considered a valid source.
Also, the wording in the paragraph and the quote makes the intent of the phrase ambiguous. Who gave the "inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements"? How did these statements affect the investigation? Given that Wikipedia is the primary source of information for many people, that voting is underway for the Republican nomination, and that many candidates are targeting Gingrich for his ethics violations, I believe something should be done to alert readers about the questionable veracity of the quote. I suggest, in order of reasonability given the context, either A a more credible source be found, B the quote and source be removed from the article, or C the source be removed and a big "citation needed" tag be added to the quote.
The full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct must still meet to decide whether to recommend disciplinary action. It is likely to call for censure or reprimand, but not for a penalty so severe as to preclude his re-election as Speaker, such as expulsion. A recommendation could come before the New Year. Gingrich admitted the charges and apologized, saying, I brought down on the people's house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their Government. Earlier this week, Mr.
Gingrich and his allies appeared to be attributing those erroneous statements to Jan Baran, his lawyer for most of the case. Today he said, I did not manage the effort intensely enough to thoroughly direct or review information being submitted to the Committee on my behalf.
In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to Committee, but I did not intend to mislead the Committee, he said. Polls showed that Gingrich and the Republican Party's attempt to remove President Clinton from office was deeply unpopular among voters. So what exactly is being said here?
Was Gingrich unpopular, and the impeachment of Clinton was unpopular as well? Or is it attributing Clinton's impeachment to both Gingrich and the Republican Party? In either case it needs to be reworded for clarity. Evanh, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me Done Yes, it was confusing even if not grammatically wrong. I fixed it. One of the first uses of the term green conservatism was by former United States Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich , in a debate on environmental issues with John Kerry.
The statement made by newt's 2nd wife was made January 19, not This is incorrect in reference The comment under "Marriages and Children" that states "This allegation was immediately disputed by Gingrich two days later during the South Carolina primary debate, saying that to bring up the question was "despicable". Callista Gingrich is notable only in relationship to her husband. All of the material about her production business is from a self-published site with no third-party references and virtually all of the other content comes from articles about her and Newt Gingrich.
This can be summarized into a few sentences in the Gingritch article with no loss of notable content. Mattnad talk , 20 January UTC. That the article about his 3d wife lacks detail is the only thing I can see that impinges on the idea of her article being independent. Is she noteable: Yes. She, and the place she occupies in his life are a big issue in the life of a notable politician. The article about Gingrich is fairly large and any chance of being able to understand her is better as an independent article.
Clearly as the year progresses this article will grow, and so will the need for it. Oppose pending tomorrow's race.
The Colonial Sympathies of Newt Gingrich
If Newt wins, Callista's article needs to be expanded, not merged. If he loses, well, we can consider that then.. Oppose per Joedesantis. Yes, if she were not married to Newt Gingrich, she would not be notable. Yet, each has their own article. The Callista article is getting over 50k hits a day and is the 1 return on a google search for her name. Keep it separate now and into the forseeable future, irrespective of the outcome of today's election. Erudy talk , 21 January UTC. Seems to me there's not much substance on Callista's page.
- Nothing new about Newt's self-serving reactionary rant?
- ethical argument essays!
- Dissertations of the Influential.
- Support OTB!
- Newt Gingrich's College Records Show a Professor Hatching Big Plans - WSJ.
- essay on it pays to be honest!
- comparative essay outline doc?
Much of it sounds like an infomercial she might have written herself. Also: Jackie wife 1 doesn't have her own page. Marianne wife 2 doesn't have her own page. Why should have a page to herself, just because the Gingriches are blowing her horn? Oppose merge. In addition to the reasons above, the simple biographical information is of interest to readers and not appropriate for this article.
Oppose, per Joedesantis. Also, other wives and husbands of prominent candidates have their own articles, too. There's no precedent for seeing them as a mere puppet of their masters. They play their own, often significant role in the campaigns and deserve to be covered under their own name. The idea that a person ist only the wife or husband of a more prominent other is so 19th century! Gray62 talk , 23 January UTC. Thechad talk , 22 January UTC.
One of the main associations I have with Newt Gingrich was his involvement in the push for an investigation into Bill Clinton's involvement with Monica Lewinsky. He was Speaker of the House in the lead up to the investigation and trial and is widely recognized as spearheading this whole investigation I was surprised this wasn't mentioned specifically in the article.
I saw there is a WP page on the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal, which on that page states that Gingrich was "one of the people leading the Impeachment proceedings against Clinton. Just looking at this from a neutral perspective, an attempt by the Speaker of the House to "remove" a standing president from office warrants a sentence or two of discussion This is more controversial, but I think a few sentences could be added in this "resignation" section about this push to impeach Clinton, or I would prefer a reference to this event be made in the section on Gingrich's personal life where it discusses his affairs--it is common knowledge Gingrich admitted to having an affair at the same time he was trying to impeach Bill Clinton for his "indiscretions" I know there's recently been a media blitz about Gingrich's second wife talking about the "open marriage" thing on national TV, and I definitely am not talking about getting into that so much, but I do feel that it is fair and reasonable to mention how involved Newt Gingrich was in this whole scandal, and how even he himself has admitted to having an affair during this same period.
This whole event did have large ramifications on the Clinton presidency and the elections and despite how people feel about the whole event in retrospect, I feel it was a very widely covered event that did have a large impact on the direction of politics. I think Gingrich can attack critics and media for recently bringing up his affair, BUT it should be acknowledged that he partially led a massive campaign using the media to attack Bill Clinton before, and this is exactly one of the reasons why his "indiscretions" are of such interest to everyone. It almost doesn't make sense to talk about his affairs and three marriages without explaining WHY this would be controversial--a fair number of people in the public eye have had affairs and been married multiple times, but the "shock factor" in his case is how he is and has been so vocal about "family values" and "sanctity of marriage", etc I am new to commenting on Wikipedia, so please let me know if there are issues with this post.
Thank you for considering this! Birdseyeview81 talk , 22 January UTC birdseyeview The section on "Ethic violations, reprimand, and fine" has been changed several times in the last 24 hours, in ways that I see as minimizing and distorting the importance of the events. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'll ask that somebody check it. I have reverted and added material there twice in the last 24 hours and do not want to get into an edit war, so a third party would be appreciated.
Smallbones talk , 23 January UTC. Not all charges were brought by Democrats, according to the NYT here. The official government report is here. After three and a half years of investigation, the IRS has cleared Newt Gingrich and his allied nonprofit groups of any violation of the tax laws in the controversy over his television history course "Renewing American Civilization. Any one know where he stands on such issues? He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Should be added after "He founded and chaired several policy think tanks including American Solutions for Winning the Future and the Center for Health Transformation.
The writer of the bio on Mr. Gingrich claims he balanced the budget in , for the first time since ? Excuse me, but whoever wrote that fails to mention some very important history. Those balanced budgets were based on the work of President Bill Clinton. They can be directly attributed to President Clinton refusing to sign the budget Mr. Gingrich and the House Republicans presented to him, using the threat of the closure of the federal government to try to force him to sign a budget that was unacceptable.
When he called their bluff and allowed the closure to happen, they went back to work and presented him with a budget he would sign.
In the later years, when Mr. Gingrich was the Speaker, yes he worked on balanced budgets, but during those years of the Clinton administration, that House knew that no less than a balanced budget would be accepted. Gingrich and the rest of the House on both sides of the aisle knew they had no choice but to present balance budgets! I have no problem with the Kemp Commission being mentioned in this article as a "see also" which I had reinstated on my last edit about this matter as Gingrich and Dole did set it up, but the conclusions that Kemp and his commission came to - the flat tax - were not followed in the Tax Relief bill, and I don't see how its conclusions accrue to Gingrich.
Note that our article on Bob Dole , who in fact chose Kemp to be his running mate in after the Kemp Commission completed its work, only lists this as a "see also" and our article Kemp Commission also only mentions Dole and Gingrich as those who set it up. So to try now to shoehorn it into this article to demonstrate some kind of history for Gingrich vis a vis flat tax, doesn't work. However, if there are reliable sources that show how the flat tax was Gingrich's position when the legislation was being created, please provide them, and we can write something that reflects that.
Also what background is the name Gringrich? I haven't read the rest of the talk page but just note that the article's coverage of Newt's college professor years seems slim. Jmc talk. This article is so badly done that it needs to be rewritten with careful attention to the sourcing, relevancy and excising the internal judgements to be replaced by sourced analysis. It cannot be easy when dealing with opposing sides, it would appear at times from within the same political party.
There should be a revision that meets the critical needs of a biography article. Essential passages need corrections and compacting. Do away with the garbage listings of sources and list sources that are directly german and authoritative. I object to the use of Ask. While it's an excellent website, biography is not its mission purpose.
As it is, the instance I'm thinking of draws on the basic biography from the House of Representatives biography site. While I'm no great fan of New Gingrich, it does a fairer and more balanced job than this mishmash. There is a wealth of material on Gingrich, i. There is also considerable material of merit on his seven years of less than good work in academia, i. That's not a negative in context. I don't have the time to do this nor do I have the wish to deal with the partisan hacks who will shred anything that is reasonable unbiased. The entire section of the Contract with America is tainted by inaccuracy, sloppiness and bias.
Newt Gingrich Goes to the Congo – Mother Jones
It is at contradiction with the article by that name, i. Not so. The contract only required the legislation be introduced and advanced as possible. The legislative section has been interwoven with items not in the Contract and with a tenuous connection. The reference to Liberals, progressives and Clinton on the proposals is biased, inaccurate and gratuitously sourced. It is patently ridiculous for base such wide ranging almost random statements from that source, not to mention it's idiotic sourcing in general.
An article should neither be devoid of life nor sourced with a list intended to support talking points. The welfare reform section is clearly influenced with bias. The two welfare reform bills were passed in both houses with strong support. Clinton vetoed both bills as indicated. The construction of the sentencing on "Gingrich negotiated with President Clinton "by offering accurate information about his party's vote counts and by persuading conservative Republicans to vote for it. It might be fair to call this a bipartisan piece of legislation. Balancing the Federal Budget, inaccurate.
Badly so. It was not a part of the contract. The Contract called for a balanced budget amendment. Obviously there were Democrats in the Senate, but when it's convenient to call the Senate Democratic, the right wingers do.
The reality is that getting passage in the Senate is difficult. The Contract proposal for a line item veto was passed in both houses, signed by Clinton and ruled unconstitutional shortly afterward. The Taxpayer Relief Act is oversold as a gain for Gingrich as is the influence of the Kemp Commission, given that Congress ignored most of it. But this was not in the Contract which as a single issue proposed requiring "a three-fifths majority to pass a tax increase. Neither went anywhere. But while some taxes were reduced, etc. Action requiring Congress to be subject to their own laws was a part of the Contract.
Unmentioned is the audit proposal, the reduction in House Committees and staff, not done; limit in committee chair terms, not done; etc. The Contract made both a proposal for constitutional term limits and also a pledge to honor self-imposed term limits. The amendment did not receive approval in the House or Senate. Those signing the contract have generally not left office before they were forced to by election or public disgrace.