Former Speaker of the House and probably future Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has written a very interesting column for the Washington Post arguing in support of his position that the Obama administration is a "secular-socialist machine."

Appearing in the Post on April 23, Gingrich's column takes the form of a response to an earlier column by Norman J. Ornstein that argued that for most people, the Obama administration doesn't seem all that radical. "To one outside the partisan and ideological wars," he wrote in the WaPo on April 14, "charges of radicalism, socialism, retreat and surrender are, frankly, bizarre."

As it turns out, Ornstein's column was a response to an earlier statement by Gingrich to the effect that Obama is "the most radical president in American history."

What we really have here is nothing more than a little boys' grade school argument:

Gingrich: "He's radical."
Ornstein: "No he's not."
Gingrich: "Is too."
Ornstein (presumably): "Is Not!"

It's all childish and diversionary, as partisan politics are wont to be. Neither of these guys, nor any mainstream politician, nor the eviscerated Fourth Estate to which they all pander, is going to come anywhere near the real issue that must be dealt with by this country: will we abide by the Constitution in the future or won't we?

Currently the Republicans are falling all over themselves trying to discredit Obama for his socialist policies. Concerning these, as Gingrich correctly notes, we have a profusion of "czar positions to micromanage industry," fundamentally disrupting basic property rights. We have nationalized student loans, put the Feds in charge of a drastic reordering of the health care system, and more. So yes, it's true: Obama and his Democrats are no friends of the Constitution (nor were they ever says the indispensable Sam Blumenfeld).

But then, neither are the Republicans friends of the Constitution. After 9/11, the Bush administration couldn't force the Patriot Act through Congress fast enough. Then there was the unnecessary creation of the über-bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security, and the creation of the disastrous TSA. And let's not forget about waterboarding, rendition, and the government's successful effort to get the telecoms to help them spy on Americans.

This rundown of disaster, from the point of view of freedom, lists only policies from the last ten years. Just think of how the list could expand if we look at more antique administrations. Let see, there was the Clinton-Gingrich effort to pass NAFTA, and undeclared wars in Bosnia and Iraq. Also, every president and Congress, bar none in living memory, falls all over itself in distributing billions of dollars in foreign aid (stripped from American taxpayers of course) all around the world. Reagan, the Republican hero, failed to make any meaningful attempt to reign in federal growth. He got into office in part by promising to dismantle the unconstitutional Department of Education — which he promptly forgot to do. These days that agency is a favorite of Republicans and Democrats both. We could go back further — don't even make me utter the name "Nixon."

Today we stand at the end of a long history of neglect and ignorance of the U.S. Constitution. So much so, in fact, that it's even become a joke. How many times have you heard, in reference to "nation building" in some country somewhere that "we may as well give them the Constitution, we aren't using it anymore"?

Today, as the next round of congressional elections approaches, and 2012 looms ahead, Americans will need to decide what kind of country theirs will become. Not long ago, noted columnist Walter Williams observed that there now seems to be two broad groups of people in America -- those who wish to be free and to be left alone and leave others alone in turn, and those who wish to control everyone and everything. These two points of view, he said, were irreconcilable, "very much like a marriage where one partner has broken, and has no intention of keeping, the marital vows."

The duality Williams describes also represents the choice that must be made by the American electorate. One way leads back to the Constitution and freedom and prosperity. The other, at best, leads to bleak economic malaise, and at worst to disaster. Let's hope in future elections, Americans choose wisely.

Add comment