Thursday, March 10, 2011

Newt Gingrich: To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine - my review

Newt Gingrich:   To Save America:  Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine - my review

This is how your review will appear:
1.0 out of 5 stars Beyond Garbage, March 10, 2011
By 
This review is from: To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine (Paperback)
To really save America, you might start by pledging never to read this book. Not only is it bad history (stunning for a man who apparently taught the subject and wrote a few works of historical fiction), but it advances as facts spurious, disrespectful, inflammatory charges that have virtually all been widely discredited. The fact that Newt Gingrich must know this, but writes it anyway, indicates that his fidelity to the truth is no greater than his fidelity to his first two wives.
Mr. Gingrich can't even get the title right. First, it's PRESIDENT Obama. He earned that title by winning the election, receiving more votes than any American president in history. Second, President Obama is a Democrat, not a socialist. There is only one member of Congress who is a socialist, an easy fact for Mr. Gingrich to check. Third, the breathless reference to a "secular-socialist machine" is simply not supported by anything President Obama has done, stated, or written, and it most certainly is not backed up by anything Mr. Gingrich writes. Fourth (and perhaps this is technical) socialism by definition is secular, so the secular part is gratuitous and redundant (and probably should not be hyphenated). It does add a certain alliterative punch though, which is perhaps why the author chose to throw it in there.
Mr. Gingrich alleges that there is a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy with the diabolical aim of empowering government to rule the people rather than serve them. As evidence of this, he cites the Justice Department's respect for the rule of law and the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of suspected terrorists (in Newt Gingrich's world, they are already guilty, and trials and attorneys are a redundant (and tax-supported) burden.
I always find the idea of an American Left (which Mr. Gingrich capitalizes for emphasis) as amusing, considering that in Europe, where I live, the Democrats would be considered a right-of-center party and the Republicans a far right party. Issues the Republicans view as socialist plots to deprive us of our liberties - such as universal healthcare, worker's rights, federally-funded daycare, extensive public transportation - have long been settled here with generally outstanding results. In fact, the United States spends more on health care but (as I write this) leaves 59 million of its citizens without health insurance, a problem Newt Gingrich does not address directly (although he has two chapters on health care, mostly about how to reduce costs and the dangers of death panels, a Sarah Palin fabrication whose critics he ridicules (p. 56)). Perhaps Gingrich feels his audience will not get his message unless he overstates it, but instead of saying that he opposes healthcare reform, he titles the chapter in question, "The Secular-Socialist Machine's Health Bill Disaster" (p. 85). Wow, if that doesn't make you run into the street waving a Lipton's tea bag, I don't know what will.
It's interesting that the same man who does not believe our children need health insurance believes that what we do need is a gun in each household and that - even with our government's advanced arsenal - a family could and should be able to keep those weapons just in case that government ever gets tyrannical (p. 294). This myth of the gun lobby - that guns can protect you not just against intruders but against your own government - is reminiscent of Sharron Angle's "second amendment remedies" rant and her intent to "take out" Senator Reid. If Gingrich's first name was Saddam, he likely would be getting a visit from the Department of Homeland Security for making even veiled terroristic threats against his government, but Newt is very, very white, and a new convert to Catholicism, so apparently gets a free pass.
The book is not only sloppy in its logic, but mean-spirited. Mr. Gingrich tells us he is a Christian, but don't expect any evidence of charity or compassion in these pages. People who are on the Left are not like you and me, Gingrich assures us. They believe in theft rather than work, union bureaucracy rather than "productivity", corruption rather than honesty, and "secular oppression" rather than "religious belief." Now, I'm not sure how much stock to put in a lecture about honesty from a man who cheated on two wives with much younger women (one while crucifying the President of the United States for cheating on his wife), and I don't know how committed Gingrich is to "religious belief" if he has been one of the most vocal critics of his fellow citizens exercising their religious beliefs in lower Manhattan. But this collection of cartoon-like false dichotomies which he lists on page 7 is not only insulting, but completely uncorroborated by anything that follows. If you want a reference to any of these dastardly traits from that oppressive Secular Left (did I mention they have a Machine?), you won't find one. If many of these stereotypes sound familiar, that's because they are rehashed talking points from Fox News, who pays Gingrich $1 million a year for repeating them.
The fact that Mr. Gingrich's personal life is so sordid and deviates so widely from what he pontificates should matter to us all, since he has advocated repeatedly that the personal, sexual life of public officials is not only fair game, but a fantastic litmus test for measuring their righteousness. By that measure, Gingrich fails, and this book does nothing to explain the yawning gaps between his serial adultery and his preaching of Christian morality.
Comparing the president of the United States to Mao or Hitler while calling him something Gingrich knows (or should know) he is not is beyond irresponsible, especially during a time of war. The idea that a president who just extended massive tax cuts for the rich, who has advanced or passed no serious firearm legislation, who has kept Guantanamo Bay open and escalated the war in Afghanistan is a socialist is beyond nonsensical, and Gingrich should be ashamed for advancing such a lie, especially in the title of a book. But a man who can present his wife with a divorce agreement while she is recovering from cancer surgery probably has a much higher threshold for shame than the rest of us.



Your Tags: fascist, tea party, hypocrite, adultery, cancer, multiple sclerosis, fat, islamophobia


The Fine Print


2 comments:

Mike Victor said...

The following comment and my response were posted at Amazon.com:
Comments
You are tracking comments on your reviews Cancel

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar. 21, 2011 7:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author 23 hours ago
Ricky C. Nelson says:
I am afraid that is tone of politics in America since 2000. PRESIDENT George W. Bush was criticized incessantly by Democrats much the same way as PRESIDENT Barack Obama is criticized by Republicans. It is now the time for Republicans to criticize because they have lost power, just as it was the Democrats' time to criticize the Republicans when they lost power. Criticism is about all powerless parties have to do. I read the book too and I think one-star is a bit harsh. His personal life is a private matter and any comments are not pertinent to the book.

You just replied with a later post
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion?
1 new post since your last visit
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Mar. 22, 2011 7:11 AM PDT
Mark Vakkur says:
My problem is not with criticism. It is with dishonesty. Anyone who criticized President Bush for invading Iraq, spying on Americans, or the outing of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA agent, is criticizing specific, provable behaviors that have a basis in fact. Those who call President Obama a "socialist" or describe a "secular machine" are making sweeping, histrionic charges not supported by facts (it would be similar to my calling President Bush a fascist, not something I would do because it is an over-the-top value judgement, not an intellectually honest appraisal of his policies). I find inflammatory, misleading language deeply damaging to our discourse. Honest debate and criticism is one thing, but calling a right-of-center president who has overseen massive tax cuts to our wealthiest citizens, largely continued programs established by his predecessor, and escalated a war in Afghanistan a socialist makes the word meaningless. I similarly object to Mr. Gingrich's sloppy use of the word secular. We are a secular nation established by secular founders who made quite clear that we were "in no way" (their words) a Christian nation in the sense, and that the separation of church and state would be sacrosanct. To read something sinister into the ideas of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams is beneath the dignity of a man who should know better.

Mike Victor said...

Posted on Mar. 25, 2011 5:41 PM PDT
Texas Reader says:
It really amazes me that citizens of socialist Europe really think they understand the American mindset. A conservative American does NOT believe that government should be so intrusive. You can criticize all you want, but the fact remains that we are a truly free people. Europeans have forgotten what that means. Ironic since they fought so hard and valiantly (at great cost) against the socialist Nazis and struggled so much against communist Russia (at least, during the Cold War, they seemed to stand tall). But perhaps they've just decided it is easier to receive entitlements from their governments (and bankrupting their nations in the process) then lift a finger to be free. I'll keep my way of life and you can keep yours.

You just replied with a later post
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
Do you think this post adds to the discussion?
1 new post since your last visit
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Mar. 26, 2011 7:00 AM PDT
Mark Vakkur says:
It is quite clear from your comments that you have probably never visited Europe. I am an American citizen deployed to Switzerland. The Swiss enjoy by many measures more freedom and direct democracy than Americans. Their economy grows faster, their debt and unemployment are far lower, and they still manage to provide universal healthcare as do all other industrialized countries including formerly communist countries - if anyone should know about the evils of communism, it would be the Czechs, Poles, and Estonians who after winning their freedom immediately granted their citizens universal healthcare and other social security benefits misunderstood by the American right (which did virtually nothing to help those oppressed by the Soviets) as parts of a Stalinist plot. Comments like yours reflect an astonishing ignorance not just of European history but of the difference between socialism and communism (sharing the last 3 letters of a word does not make it a synonym). Americans really should get out and travel more; you would realize within a few days how silly your blanket generalizations are. To think that we once stood tall against ignorance and state propaganda; now we not only mass produce it, we actually believe it. Turn off Fox, renew your passport, and visit some of these places. And read a history book or two to find out what made communism so horrifying (it wasn't universal healthcare which they really weren't able to deliver anyway, but secret police, camps, and mass killings). By the way, I am not just an American citizen, but a West Point graduate, and (unlike Newt) Army veteran who lived most of my life in the United States, so before dismissing the comments of a "citizen of socialist Europe" a.) don't assume; and b.) get out a map (Switzerland is not socialist - perhaps the shared first 2 letters made you confuse it with Sweden).

Search This Blog