Because You Never Asked

A 'NEWTERED' AMERICA

     (This essay and the one to follow, entitled “What Does Newt Really Believe?”, should be read together. They were written 11 weeks after the massive Republican victory in 1994, a victory which represented a break in the basic direction of American political thought that had begun with FDR. I put these essays up on my website in January of 2007 because the elections of 2006 seem to have put an end to this cycle. One could blame the ineptitude of George W. Bush for this defeat, but the seeds of his election first began to produce fruit in 1994. That 1994 led to the second Bush presidency is no accident.)

     I write this piece just 11 weeks after the elections of 1994, at a time in history where the progressive elements of American life have been thoroughly emasculated. The man most responsible for the gelding of the liberal horse has a name many voters might have confused with a gum disease before these elections. He is the politician that has most galvanized wide spread voter discontent for his own benefit. He is the now unmistakable Newt Gingrich, and he is currently the most influential leader on the nation’s political landscape, something Newt himself will never let us forget.

     The “Newt-Rush” animal is suffering a disease quite common to long suffering, first time winners, that being a prodigious overdose of conceit. They’d have us believe they have an unquestioned mandate to remake the country in their own God-like image. I’d like to remind this animal that their “mandate” is based upon the favorable vote of just 20% of the eligible voters. In fact, the Republican landslide of ’94 garnered less votes as winners than they received as losers in the last off election of 1990. The conservative victory of ‘94 was based primarily on the fact that millions of Americans have lost faith in the system. In spite of this reality, Mr. Gingrich acts as if he’s just been handed the Sacred Tablets from the Divine Source, as if he has a unilateral right to cram his vision of the world down our collective throats. It would be more reasonable to say he’s been given the opportunity to state his case and we are all listening.

     As for myself, the more I hear, the more dubious I become. There is a patronizing pomposity in Newt’s attempts to qualify himself as an “intellectual” that reminds me of the “phony science” used by the Nazis to justify their racial assertions. Mr. Gingrich’s unending quest to have himself anointed as a serious scholar and “historian” has a veneer of superficiality. He seems to be saying, “hey guys, I’m a professor, I taught my own history course, at a real college, honest!” This is true, but it is relevant to note that the institutions where Newt has pursued his “distinguished” teaching career have never been known as intellectual powerhouses. I’m sure the University of West Georgia is a competent center of learning that successfully prepares its students for the roles they might play in our society, but such institutions are not known to produce the kind of revolutionary scientific or philosophical thought that bears heavily on history. (I use the word “revolutionary” because people like Newt have taken to using it in describing their programs. I’m sure old Spartacus would be twitching on his cross if he heard such loose use of the word.)

     Perhaps the most laughable aspect of all this is the new Speaker’s propensity for telling us what movies to see and what books to read. Considering some of the uplifting splendor that has been achieved in the art of cinema, his devotion to a generic WWII film starring John Wayne, “The Sands of Iwo Jima”, immediately bring his intellect into question, just as Ronald Reagan’s affection for the movie “Rambo” did. (Although, to his credit, Reagan never tried to impress us with his intellect). This is a film that could easily be interchanged with dozens of others, films with celluloid heroes meant for no other purpose than to sell tickets at the local Bijou on Main Street. (Question: what do Newt Gingrich, John Wayne, Bob Hope, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Dan Quayle and Sylvester Stallone all have in common? Answer: they have the same amount of combat experience as Jane Fonda). It is the type of film me and my pre-pubescent-adolescent friends used to refer to as “war movies”. Maybe they were specifically made for kids like us (and the millions of adult kids walking the planet), but as I grew older and gathered a minimal amount of wisdom, I began to realize their depiction of war --- with their heroes and cowards, good guys and bad guys, Japs and Krauts, etc. --- was a very superficial treatment of the material. With this in mind, I hope the Speaker won’t mind if I recommend a few films to him, films that are anything but sophomoric “war movies”, but rather, movies about war. The people who created these movies were more interested in provoking us into thought than in wresting a few dollars from some adolescent male minds.

     Two of my favorites are by Stanley Kubrick, one of the true film geniuses of our time. The first is a haunting WWI film, “The Paths of Glory”, the second one of the greatest satirical works ever made, the immortal “Dr. Strangelove”. Another is the beautifully acted, brilliantly creative epic, “Oh What a Lovely War”, as well as the moving film adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut’s novel, “Slaughterhouse Five” --- and oh, how could I ever leave out the great film, “Mr. Roberts”? As long as I’m at it, the war poetry of Wilfred Owen and Sigfreed Sassoon would really do Newt’s intellect a whole lot of good, as well as the incomparable novel, “Catch 22”, by Joseph Heller. Also recommended is a sleeper of a novel, “An Ice Cream War”, by the Englishman, William Boyd, such classics as Stephen Crane’s, “The Red Badge of Courage”, Vicente Blasco Ibanez’s, “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse”, and Erich Maria Remarque’s, “All Quiet on the Western Front”. With Newt’s guillotine posed directly over the neck of Public Broadcasting, I must emphatically trumpet this station’s documentary by Ken Burns, “The Civil War”, one of the most moving films I’ve had the privilege to see on any size screen. Although I doubt if the rotund intellect of Mr. Gingrich allows him to flap his mouth in more than one language, the collection of short stories dealing with the Spanish Civil War, “Cuentos II” (Stories II), by F. Garcia Pavon, would surely enrich his stay on this planet, and oh, lest I forget, let’s include the short story “Deutsches Requiem”, by one of the great intellects of our time, The Argentinean, Jorge Luis Borges.

     After now having immersed myself in this task, I find it necessary to leave the war arena so I can enlighten the Speaker with a few more relevant titles. Since Mr. Gingrich is so eager to explain the essence of American “civilization”, I recommend the Australian film “The Walkabout”, Kevin Costner’s masterpiece, “Dancing With Wolves”,  Alejo Carpentier’s insightful novel, “Los Pasos Perdidos” (The Lost Steps), and the epic novel written by Austin Tappen Wright in his spare time, “Islandia”. All these magnificent works delve into the question of what is “civilized” and what is not. For an hilarious look at business greed and immorality, I suggest Robert Downey’s hippest of hip films, “Putney Swope”, and the irreverent blockbuster, “Network”, a movie remarkable for its intellect and mass appeal (one has to wonder if such a film would ever be made and distributed by the huge conglomerates responsible for what almost all of humanity sees these days at the movies). Being that much of the recent political success of the “Newt-Rush” animal can be attributed to a swelling wave of pseudo-Christianity, I suggest the novels “Man of Nazareth”, by the English genius, Anthony Burgess, and “The Greek Passion”, by the Zorba-famous Greek writer, Nikos Kazintzakas, both of which set forth what it really means to be a Christian. In conclusion, Newt might be forewarned as to where his concept of civilization is leading us by seeing a film that left me stunned, another Kubrick masterpiece, “A Clockwork Orange”. In much the same vein is Jules Pfeiffer’s beautifully written satire, “Little Murders”, which also deserves The Speaker’s utmost attention.

     I realize a mind as highly developed as Mr. Gingrich’s could conceivably be familiar with some of the works listed in this essay. If so, I suggest he familiarize himself with them again and pay closer attention this time. If given the opportunity, I also recommend the essay to follow, “What Does Newt Really Believe?”                    

back to the Table of Contents

Email: JerryG@postcman.info