I hope that you and your wife are doing well. You may be aware that Sharon and I are now living in central Mexico, where we intend to stay for another year or so. We have kept our home near San Francisco and of course shall return sometime later; but, for now, we very much are happy to be living in one of the few parts of Mexico not engulfed in a drug war.
We have FOX News where we live and keep abreast of political developments. In regards to your comments about Newt Gingrich, I want to let you know that, back in the mid 1990s, I was a member of Republicans for the National Interest (back then, Ron Prince, who was the author of California Proposition 187, was our Chairman), when we worked with several other conservative groups to persuade Republican Congressman Bob Livingston to seek the post of House Speaker. We wanted to get rid of Speaker Gingrich, because we came to realize that he was carrying the water for globalist, "open borders" types, not just on the issue of illegal immigration, but also with respect to United Nations' mandates and so called "free trade." We knew that the only way to dislodge him was to persuade some Republican to run against him for the post of House Speaker, since that candidacy would expose the fissure that had formed already within the House Republican caucus and dry up financial and establishment support for Gingrich. Of course, as you may recall, Livingston did not in fact become the House Speaker, because of his own scandal; and the job eventually fell to Congressman Denny Hastert. Nevertheless, by getting rid of Gingrich, the Republicans in the end were able to preserve their majority until 2006, when it might have been lost earlier, if they had kept Gingrich as their titular leader.
What I observed then, and still see today, is that Gingrich is a man of ideas (not always of a conservative bent, but at least intellectually precocious in a town where new ideas are not often entertained) and thus a capable lightning rod. He is able and willing to rock the boat, a Robespierre, when most of his contemporaries are slithering, would be Metternichs; but, in the manner of Robespierre, he is not capable as an administrator and, in short order, much of his bombast falls flat. Besides Ron Paul, he may be the only Republican now in the field incapable of defeating President Obama in a general election.
Switching metaphors away from the French Revolution, I tend to see in Gingrich a replay of Nixon in 1968. By that election, the American people already were well aware - and not very well disposed toward - the shifty politician with the permanent, five o'clock shadow. He had been a Vice President in what was already regarded as a "past era," a figment of history as opposed to being a beacon of the future. The American people never really rallied to him as a result. By a paper thin margin, they elected him because they feared the agitators on the streets and questioned the capacity of Hubert Humphrey to stand up to them. Voters were also tired of the Vietnam War and did not see how the same party that got us in that bloody quagmire then could be trusted to free us from it. But for these calamitous circumstances, I suspect that Nixon would have lost yet again in his apoplectic quest for the White House.
Times are tough for a lot of people, and Obama is a particularly lame President in the eyes of most voters (though more sophisticated observers understand that he is dangerous and, in fact, as incompetent as the wily fox lulling the sheep asleep). Still, Occupy Wall Street in 2012 is not going to succeed as well as the various New Left agitators in 1968 in frightening the majority of independent voters back into the arms of the GOP; and, while there may be some similarities, Afghanistan does not inspire the same reaction as Vietnam. Thus, while a "perfect storm" of disaffection allowed for Nixon to win in 1968, I do not believe at present that the same will hold true for Gingrich in 2012.
There is another prescient point to keep in mind. Most often, in American political history, when a particularly momentous President has fallen into widespread disapproval because of his perceived or real overreach, voters will respond by electing someone who is noteworthy for being a mellow, uncharismatic, no frills, do-nothing. Having had too much idealism, and seen the underbelly of excessive charm over substance, they will gravitate to a managerial type, or even a colorless politico. An example is how the many domestic and foreign policy overreaches by President Wilson - culminating in his own idealistic refrain to "end all wars" by foisting his cherished League of Nations over and above national interests - caused the American people to favor the dull, corrupt, card shark, boozer Warren G. Harding in 1920. It is not that they replace one, idealistic overreach with its equally idealistic opposite; it is, rather, that they attempt to do away with idealistic refrains altogether.
A colorless, posturing manager like Mitt Romney thus may be best positioned to defeat the ideologically excessive Obama in 2012. My concern is that, if elected, then Romney will do what all of his Republican predecessors have done - namely, refuse to get rid of the social welfare infrastructure that the previous Democrat President had constructed, so as carefully not to alienate the voters who have come to rely on that infrastructure. Instead, he will be a "better manager" of the same, overbearing government and call that "conservative." Indeed, like Bush and Rove, he may even add some more goodies to the government handouts, so as to win some of the growing class of dependency voters over to his ranks. This tendency explains why the Republican Party that once opposed Medicare as an unconstitutional, big government boondoggle is now the Republican Party that is committed to saving Medicare.
I suspect that, among the Republicans now in the field, only Bachmann would try seriously to dismantle big government. I do not include Ron Paul in this list, because I do not regard him seriously as a "Republican," but rather as a Libertarian. Santorum is a very principled, social conservative; and God bless him for his courage there. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, he is much more a "creature of Washington" than Bachmann; and, if ever he were to be elected President, then his main constituency of political support would be found not within the ranks of the Tea Party (which have gravitated between Bachmann and Cain over the past several months and which more clearly demand the wholesale dismantling of big government), but within the ranks of social conservatives (some of whom are Tea Partiers as well, to be sure, but others of whom have avoided the movement in favor of their more church focused agenda). Many of these social conservatives want to retain big government and simply have it redirected in favor of their social agenda - similar indeed to the so called "compassionate conservative" stance that Bush and Rove used effectively in keeping the Evangelical Christian base squarely behind them. Some of them even oppose restrictions on illegal immigration as "uncharitable" (a reality that I saw first hand last year in the less than favorable coverage that the Support Federal Immigration Law initiative received within the online pages of the American Family Association newsletter, One News Now). If this is the growing trend among Evangelical Christians and Traditional Catholics, then a Santorum Presidency would not be likely to cut back substantially on the big government constructed by four years of Obama. I suspect that he would mirror George W. Bush a lot more than we may want to admit at this time. Though less hawkish than Santorum, Huntsman would be much the same: keeping big government more or less intact and mollifying the Republican base with social conservative appeals, especially in the weeks prior to midterm elections.
Last, and in this case also least, there is Rick Perry. I believe that his fundamental political instincts are conservative and that, by all accounts, he is a principled Christian. He had his chance at stardom, nevertheless, and blew it. Indeed, he continues to blow it with one gaffe after another. Bachmann has given us some tongue twisters as well; but, overall, no one is able seriously to doubt her sophisticated grasp of the issues. Thus, again, I suspect that, if indeed we Republicans want to find a conservative alternative to Romney (which at the end of the day may not be a particularly wise endeavor, since Romney is best positioned to get rid of Obama and that, of course, must remain our top priority), then Bachmann may be the best one in the field.
