Newt "Defends" the First Amendment

There's been some flap on the left about Newt Gingrich's recent speech on First Amendment rights, most of which is related to possible curtailment of those rights in light of the WOT. The right is praising his suggestion for expanding First Amendment rights by rescinding McCain-Feingold, a favorite target of Republicans because, of course, their donors are the big-money guys. Stephen Bainbridge, trying to be fair, comes up with this one:

To be sure, there is some risk of money leading to corruption.

I'm sorry, but I had to laugh. McCain-Feingold isn't perfect, and I doubt that we can come up with finance reform that is, but that particular "insight" was just too much. With the example of Abramoff and all the other corruption scandals in Washington (which, please remember, our good friends at GayPatriot labelled "The Democrats' Culture of Corruption"), it's nice of Bainbridge to broach that possibility.

Of course, one thing that the right wing doesn't want to discuss when calling for the repeal of campaign finance reform, or deregulation of monopolies (it seems AT&T is poised to become, once again, a monopoly, but this time without the regulation) is that this regulation is a reaction to past excesses. Contrary to the prevailing mantra on the right, Democrats don't just regulate stuff for the hell of it. There has, in general, been a cause. (Certain basic services, such as communications and utilities, are best regulated, or made state enterprises, although in this country the idea of relying on the state for electical power is scary. OF course, Commonwealth Edison can't always deliver, so maybe the state running it wouldn't be that bad.)

One problem I have with the whole discussion is that the right is prepared to take Gingrich's comments at face value, and the left is assuming it's code for an authoritarian state. Captain Ed has a discussion that falls into the former category. My reaction is somewhat different. Take this quote from Gingrich's speech:

This is a serious long term war, and it will enviably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear of biological weapons. . . .

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.

On the face of it, it'spretty innocuous, and I don't think I want to credit even Gingrich with subterfuge here. My problem is in the execution, starting with the dialogue. Gingrich, like most on the far right and the far left, isn't patient with disagreement. And frankly, the ways this kind of approach has been carried out by the present administration are cause for grave concern. I have no reason to believe that Gingrich would be more competent as president, or have more integrity or more respect for what America is.

Let's face it -- this is the start of his presidential campaign. From the looks of it, Gingrich is playing the fear card early.

I have to agree with Keith Olbermann: it's the recourse of those who have no faith in their own ideas. Because their "ideas" are smokescreens for one idea: power.