Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Gingrich Opens The Discussion
UPDATED
I appreciate his standing up for the First Amendment, but I think the Captain has over-reacted.
I've been listening closely to Mr. Gingrich for the past couple of years as he has contributed to the national dialogue, and I believe he has now begun focusing his energies on what he thinks are the most important challenges facing Americans in the coming years.
All these challenges have their roots in the present, and one of the most pressing of these problems is that the enemy is winning the propaganda war. Why? I believe it's because most Americans simply are not thinking in a wartime context, especially when they leap on the latest dishonest, manipulative story based on leaks to the NYT by a government insider, or picked up by the AP from an enemy-agent stringer, for the egregious purpose of undermining the President for political purposes. This is an especially despicable practice in wartime, and this is wartime, make no mistake.
No war is won without a powerful and focused propaganda campaign, and no enemy can be conquered without force, accompanied by the will to use it and the power to communicate that willingness. Stories such as the Flying Imams and the Six Burned Sunnis are perfect examples of how the propaganda war is being fought against America by enemies both within and outside the country and around the world. Such stories always find their way to the headlines, but then the MSM does nothing to contextualize them; instead, they get the "Abu Ghraib Treatment" and are splashed all over the front page for weeks, with nothing to counter their propaganda value to the enemy.
Is Gingrich talking about limiting the press in such cases to what it can and cannot print? I don't think so. I think he wants us to discuss that, though, because we need to decide what to do about the MSM in its present form, which is simply no longer acceptable. The question is, what do we do about that particular problem, and how do the solutions we propose hold up against the Constitution? The answers will come from honest dialogue, not partisan leftist poo-flinging. It's time to act like adults with the common cause of destroying Islamic fascism. That's as pure and simple as it gets.
I think Gingrich also wants us to explore the parameters of free speech in the context of wartime. What was acceptable on September 10, 2001 is not necessarily so now; that has to be the starting point for any discussion of proposed limitations on free speech, and this should not be thought of as a slippery slope, because I believe the solution is right there in the Constitution (and here we see the crucial value of conservative judicial restraint as opposed to liberal judicial activism). Even if Americans decide that there should remain no limits on free speech beyond those present in the Constitution, I think that dialogue has to take place. So, again without all the rhetorical nonsense of the past five years, how do we define what is acceptable and what is not, in service to a war to protect our freedoms?
In posing his questions in so open-ended a manner, Gingrich is also asking the questions that must be answered before any honest and beneficial discussion can take place: are Americans prepared to grow up and act like adults? Are Americans ready to put aside their differences so as to make for an honest discussion? Are Americans willing to put the future of the country first? Is it possible to have an honest adult discussion with all that partisan noise still playing in the background?
I must declare my honest hope that the questions Gingrich poses will be met with non-partisan, responsible and honest consideration.
That, and only that, will save us.
UPDATE
Dr. Rusty:
Newt Gingrich GETS the Cyber Jihad: It's time to take it seriously
Newt Gingrich gets it, those naysaying him don't.
I appreciate his standing up for the First Amendment, but I think the Captain has over-reacted.
I've been listening closely to Mr. Gingrich for the past couple of years as he has contributed to the national dialogue, and I believe he has now begun focusing his energies on what he thinks are the most important challenges facing Americans in the coming years.
All these challenges have their roots in the present, and one of the most pressing of these problems is that the enemy is winning the propaganda war. Why? I believe it's because most Americans simply are not thinking in a wartime context, especially when they leap on the latest dishonest, manipulative story based on leaks to the NYT by a government insider, or picked up by the AP from an enemy-agent stringer, for the egregious purpose of undermining the President for political purposes. This is an especially despicable practice in wartime, and this is wartime, make no mistake.
No war is won without a powerful and focused propaganda campaign, and no enemy can be conquered without force, accompanied by the will to use it and the power to communicate that willingness. Stories such as the Flying Imams and the Six Burned Sunnis are perfect examples of how the propaganda war is being fought against America by enemies both within and outside the country and around the world. Such stories always find their way to the headlines, but then the MSM does nothing to contextualize them; instead, they get the "Abu Ghraib Treatment" and are splashed all over the front page for weeks, with nothing to counter their propaganda value to the enemy.
Is Gingrich talking about limiting the press in such cases to what it can and cannot print? I don't think so. I think he wants us to discuss that, though, because we need to decide what to do about the MSM in its present form, which is simply no longer acceptable. The question is, what do we do about that particular problem, and how do the solutions we propose hold up against the Constitution? The answers will come from honest dialogue, not partisan leftist poo-flinging. It's time to act like adults with the common cause of destroying Islamic fascism. That's as pure and simple as it gets.
I think Gingrich also wants us to explore the parameters of free speech in the context of wartime. What was acceptable on September 10, 2001 is not necessarily so now; that has to be the starting point for any discussion of proposed limitations on free speech, and this should not be thought of as a slippery slope, because I believe the solution is right there in the Constitution (and here we see the crucial value of conservative judicial restraint as opposed to liberal judicial activism). Even if Americans decide that there should remain no limits on free speech beyond those present in the Constitution, I think that dialogue has to take place. So, again without all the rhetorical nonsense of the past five years, how do we define what is acceptable and what is not, in service to a war to protect our freedoms?
In posing his questions in so open-ended a manner, Gingrich is also asking the questions that must be answered before any honest and beneficial discussion can take place: are Americans prepared to grow up and act like adults? Are Americans ready to put aside their differences so as to make for an honest discussion? Are Americans willing to put the future of the country first? Is it possible to have an honest adult discussion with all that partisan noise still playing in the background?
I must declare my honest hope that the questions Gingrich poses will be met with non-partisan, responsible and honest consideration.
That, and only that, will save us.
UPDATE
Dr. Rusty:
Newt Gingrich GETS the Cyber Jihad: It's time to take it seriously
Newt Gingrich gets it, those naysaying him don't.
