Pete Wehner stumbles to the point about Mr. Gingrich:
The single most important idea, when it comes to fundamentally changing Washington, is the budget plan put forward by Representative Paul Ryan last April. When most massive-scale-of-change conservatives were defending Ryan’s plan against scorching criticisms from the left, Gingrich described the plan as an example of ‘right-wing social engineering’. It was Gingrich, not the rest of us, who was counseling caution, timidity, and an unwillingness to shape (rather than follow) public opinion. (The Medicare reform plan Gingrich eventually put out wasn’t nearly as bold and far-reaching as the one put out by Governor Romney.)
So much for Mr. Fundamental Change.
One does notice, as an aside, that American ‘conservatives’, this year as in 2010, are demanding fundamental change regarding several things, most importantly regarding federal spending and the size and role of government in private lives, which gives the lie to the standard terminology of American political debate; in the standard political terminology, contrary to the fraudulent argot of American political punditry, this year's Republicans (or, more specifically, ‘Tea Partiers’) are the liberals, i.e. the ones who are standing for liberty.
* * *
This raises another issue I have with the political chattering-class in America: They seem completely unware (deliberately so, I suspect) of the roots of Tea Party politics. The movement began as a rant by a commentator on CNBC to the effect that our government is spending insanely on things it cannot afford and the people do not want. Border issues didn't enter into it, although they do with some groups that call themselves ‘Tea Party’ this-or-that. But even much of that boils down to what we're spending on illegal immigrants, people who can't bring themselves to follow the rules but who feel entitled (because they are, by our welfare laws) to American taxpayer money.
I consider myself a Tea Party sort. My foremost and overriding concern is with the expanse and expense of government. I do not want to restrict immigration beyond current law and in truth I think our immigration process ought to be more streamlined. I only want to know two things: 1. Does the prospective immigrant have a criminal record (details please — pissing off Hugo Chavez is not a demerit!), and 2. Does the prospective immigrant expect to care for himself and his family or at least to rely on private charity until he can get onto his own feet? If this prospective immigrant is a good person who means to be self-supporting (and I will insist on it), then: Welcome to my country! Now get to work. (Oh, yes: And learn English, please.)
And spare me the nonsense about ‘American jobs’. This is pure nonsense from any rational economic perspective; people who support themselves are a net benefit to our economy, not a net drain. They even pay their own taxes, again netting to the good.
Comments