What Newt Gingrich Really Meant By "Kenyan, Anti-Colonial Behavior"

Don’t be fooled. Gingrich is a master rhetorican.

For the past week or so, the American media has been discussing some seemingly strange remarks Newt Gingrich recently made about President Obama to the conservative National Review:

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

A thorough parsing of these words is in order, not because they ring true, but rather because of the insight we can gain into how conservative rhetoric and message framing often work.

Before proceeding, recall that in 1996 Gingrich wrote what is now an infamous memorandum for GOPAC titled, “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.” In that memo, the then Speaker of the House listed one set of emotionally charged words that Republicans could associate with themselves (“Optimistic Positive Governing Words”) and another set they could associate with their opponents (“Contrasting Words”). Here Gingrich acknowledged an unfortunate fact about the American people: they are far too responsive to rhetoric and are less concerned with substantive policy matters. Ironically, Gingrich features “cynicism” in his list of words to heap upon one’s opponents. After all, few things are more cynical than preparing a list of buzzwords to which you think your compatriots would respond in knee-jerk fashion. As far as Newt is concerned, Americans are not people; they are Pavlovian dogs to be conditioned.

Turning again to the present, let us examine Gingrich’s remarks about President Obama to see what’s behind these prima facie idiotic comments.

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension…”

Quick. Think of some things that are or are said to be “outside our comprehension.” Here’s what I came up with:

God

Satan

Demons

Ghosts

Aliens/UFOs

The common theme here is the unknown. And how do humans feel about that which is unknown to them? They fear it, whatever it happens to be. So really this first part of Gingrich’s question is constructed so as to suggest that Obama is unknowable, and therefore people ought to be frightened of him. While the saying, “People fear what they do not understand” is certainly cliché, it is very often true. Obama is particularly susceptible to this line of attack because he’s African-American, has a unique (and foreign) name, spent much time abroad as a child, and had a father born in Kenya, which is not a country typically associated with the melting pot of America. Hence the frequent suggestions by some conservatives that Obama is secretly a Muslim or at the very least sympathizes with Sharia Law, that Obama is an adherent of Black Liberation theology, or that he was born in Kenya and therefore should be disqualified from the Presidency. Newt’s message here is clear: Obama is unknowable and untrustworthy. Therefore he should be feared.

Continuing on,

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior…”

This phrase about “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior” seems to be everyone’s (Left and Right) favorite part. Here Gingrich is reinforcing the image of Obama as a foreign and unknowable entity, unless of course “you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.” And what American understands that? In fact, what do these words even mean?

For Gingrich, associating the word “Kenyan” with Obama while criticizing him is just another way of calling him an unknown, or a foreigner, or the Other, if you will. But insertion of the term “anti-colonial” really left me scratching my head. The extent of my knowledge about “Kenyan, anti-colonial” behavior is the Mau Mau Rebellion in 1950s, when native Kenyans fought an ongoing insurrection against British colonial soldiers who were occupying their land. If this story sounds familiar, that’s because it has played out many times literally the world over, including here in the 1770s when Americans took up arms against their British colonial oppressors, who were far nicer to the Americans than they were to the Kenyans. Furthermore, as an ideology, “colonialism” has a notoriously bad reputation and rightfully so. Conquering foreign peoples, pillaging their resources, and taking their land forcibly for one’s own use is frowned upon by virtually everyone across the political spectrum. It is one thing to advocate an interventionist foreign policy (à la George W. Bush), but it’s quite another to imply that being “anti-colonial” is somehow wrongheaded (à la King George III).

Of course, I haven’t heard anyone in the media besides AlterNet point this out—that not only should Barack Obama have an “anti-colonial” worldview, but so should everyone on the planet.

Continuing on,

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?”

Quick. What are things people “piece together”?

Puzzles

Crime scenes

IKEA furniture

Ouija board sessions

The common theme here is frustration. When one “pieces together” something such as one of the above, it can be a very rewarding experience. But like cracking a code the process of getting there can be a very painstaking experience fraught with aggravation and angst. Here Gingrich wishes to convey the message that Obama is a puzzle to be solved, but only by those few who understand “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.” Unfortunately, the vast majority of people never will, and thus Obama will remain “outside our comprehension.”

While it is true that Gingrich is not making an outright claim but rather asking a question about Obama, the mere musing is suggestive enough to accomplish the rhetorical goal of painting the President as an outsider who is hopelessly inaccessible to most Americans. Furthermore, in the very next sentence Gingrich immediately transforms his “question” into a “fact” by stating,

“That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

Thus we see that Newt’s question was a rhetorical one, a statement of “fact” designed to strike upon the key themes of foreignness, mysteriousness, and uncertainty.

The phrase, “predictive model for his behavior” is not one that is heard in everyday conversation. If it is heard at all such a statement is most likely to be uttered by a naturalist studying an elusive species of animal, or perhaps by a psychologist attempting to understand the behavior of a manic depressive or a schizophrenic. Either way, the phrase “predictive model for his behavior” is crafted so as to dehumanize Obama, to make him into an object of study rather than a fellow human being or a fellow American. “Predictive modeling” is not something in which most people engage, and certainly not in regards to their fellow humans. Thus, Gingrich is again reinforcing the idea that Obama is unknowable, and also that attempts to understand him or indeed, connect with him as a human being, is sure to be a futile endeavor.

The above analysis of a mere two sentences is admittedly lengthy. However, these statements typify modern conservative rhetoric. It is a rhetoric that requires enemies to tear down. American conservatism today is bereft of any real ideas or actual solutions, and so it must constantly be attacking something in order to be effective. Conservatives have seemingly cornered the market on patriotism, not because they are truly great patriots, but because they are constantly railing against both real and imagined boogeymen who seek to do America harm. Hence the frequent use of the phrase “anti-American” by conservative pundits and politicians to describe everything from war protesters to secularism to a health care bill. Conservatives understand that the best defense is a good offense. If conservatives weren’t constantly on the offensive, they would have to spend more time articulating and defending their policy prescriptions, which are often quite unpalatable.

Key to political rhetoric—especially conservative political rhetoric—in contemporary America is the ability to convey deep emotional messages using a few hollow words. What came out of Newt Gingrich’s mouth recently was not an accident, and it would be a grave mistake for liberals to assume that his comments were merely off-the-cuff and said in an unthinking manner. Gingrich knows precisely what he is doing. He’s not alone.

- Max Canning

Faux Conservatives Diss Ron Paul

Disliked and mocked by many so-called conservatives, Congressman Ron Paul (R - Texas) is probably the closest thing to a conservative in Washington.

Take a look at the following clip from Fox “News” reporting the results of this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll. The winner was Ron Paul, which for Fox was the wrong result. Watch as they try to explain away Paul’s nine point first place finish last week over golden boy Mitt Romney.

This sorry-ass report tells you all you need to know about Fox “News.” Notice how the reporter tried to downplay Paul’s victory by saying that attendees weren’t just handed a ballot, but rather they had to go out of their way to booths in order to vote at the convention. In other words, Paul’s supporters are dedicated and they really believe in their guy. What does this episode say for the support for Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin or Tim Pawlenty? It says that maybe they don’t have too many supporters who are excited enough about their potential candidate to vote for self-serving, made-for-TV professional politicians.

Can you guess what the CPAC crowd’s reaction was when the results of the poll were announced? They booed loud enough to drown out the Paul supporters That’s pretty amazing considering that Ron Paul is arguably the most principled Republican in Congress. Unlike the phonies who comprise the GOP, there is no gap between what he says and how he votes. Personally I agree with Paul’s warnings about our interventionist policies in international affairs. I agree with him about the need to protect personal liberty. But we are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the economy. Paul wants government out of the markets as much as possible, which I think will pave the way for a tyrannical takeover of America by big business. Obviously he would dispute this conclusion, but given the dysfunctional nature of American democracy, we are ripe for corporate picking.

Having said this, I admire Ron Paul for his consistency and willingness to stick to his principles, even when it is politically unpopular. And in the modern Republican Party, antiquated ideas such as personal liberty and retrenching our hegemonic ways in international relations are very unpopular. That’s because the GOP of today advocates a mild form of fascism characterized by extreme patriotism which is used to launch wars of choice to secure American (elites’) economic interests. It also seeks to foster an ever cozier relationship between corporations and the government (which Democrats also advocate), and also a gradual erosion of individual freedom via legislation such as the PATRIOT Act, as well as through debt slavery which has a very limiting effect on personal liberty.

Republican bigwigs would prefer that Ron Paul didn’t exist for the simple fact that he makes them look bad. If any one of the 200 plus Republican lawmakers in Congress can claim to be against “big government,” it’s Ron Paul. I find it absolutely hilarious that the CPAC attendees were cheering guest speaker Dick Cheney whose administration exploded the national debt and funneled billions if not trillions of taxpayer dollars into the big banks to bail their sorry under-regulated asses out. But what do you expect? The CPAC people are full of shit. All of them. Well, most of them anyway. How else can you explain their mindless applauses for people such as Cheney, and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who helped the Bush administration dig America into a giant hole? The same goes for Newt Gingrich. When he was Speaker of the House, Gingrich’s district was one of the biggest recipients of federal money (pork) in the country. So yeah, Newt said he wanted to reduce federal spending, but not on Cobb County, Georgia where Lockheed-Martin just happened to be the largest employer. Although the Lockheed plant there wasn’t actually in Gingrich’s district, thousands of his constituents were nonetheless employed there. As such, Gingrich helped secure a $503 million government contract with Lockheed to build nine C130-J transport planes that the Air Force said it didn’t need. I don’t remember reading that in the Contract with America.

This is American conservatism at work. Ronald Reagan, for which many conservatives have an almost neurotic fetish, has achieved a mythical status as a slayer of big government in defiance of what he actually did as president. But in order for Republicans to run against “big government,” they need to rewrite recent history in order to portray their party as one of small government. But that’s bullshit, and as soon as they’re in power they show just how full of it they were on the campaign trail. And the sad thing is, the people who voted for them never call them on it. The fact that the teabaggers came into existence the month following Barack Obama’s inauguration speaks volumes about their motivations. Indeed, if a Republican became president today, the majority of teabaggers would go away for the rest of the administration no matter what the new president did or how much he spent from here on in. Sure they’d keep their organizations and websites, but as for the mass protests against nonexistent tax hikes, kiss those goodbye. And if you think I’m wrong, you’re only kidding yourself.

- Max Canning

Appendix

As these charts clearly indicate, Republican presidents have done more to increase the size of government than Democrats.

Gross debt as a percentage of GDP

From the FY 2009 Government budget. Upper chart shows national debt in trillions of dollars. Lower chart shows national debt as percentage of GDP. Both are overlaid with party affiliation. Red = Republican president, Blue = Democratic president.

Charts courtesy of Wikipedia.

Newt Gingrich Proves Our Point About Republicans Appealing To Emotions

Newt Gingrich is a pathetic, carping has-been.

Last night on the Daily Show, former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich made a surprising admission.

Gingrich was talking with Jon Stewart about the underwear bomber, and the former was belching the same tired lines about how absurd it was to read Amdulmutallab his rights. Stewart then pointed out that the Bush administration did the same thing with shoe bomber Richard Reid. Gingrich then falsely responded with all the confidence in the world, “Richard Reid was an American citizen.” Reid was not, and is not, a U.S. citizen. He’s a U.K. citizen, and as such has the same legal standing in the United States as the Nigerian underwear bomber. Unfortunately, Stewart did not correct him during the interview.

Is Gingrich lying? Does he really think Richard Reid was an American citizen? If he does, then clearly Gingrich’s opinions on counterterrorism warrant no respect whatsoever. If he was lying, then Gingrich himself deserves no respect whatsoever. Either way, we should not be taking policy advice from Newt Gingrich.

Shortly after Gingrich’s gaffe/lie, he blabbed some more about terrorism and the American people, and at one point the following exchange took place:

Stewart: That’s a very emotional way to put it.

Gingrich: That’s part of our job—is to reach out to the emotions of the American people.

Stewart: I think that’s wise. And don’t let reality get in the way.

Gingrich didn’t specify which “our” he’s a part of, but I think it’s safe to assume he means conservatives/Republicans. Here we have a crystal-clear admission from the most important Republican of the 1990s that appealing to people’s emotions is an important part of their M.O. Never mind that the underwear bomber is providing authorities with information despite being read his rights. All that matters to Gingrich and company is the opportunity to portray the other side as weak on terrorism. But it seems to me that conservatives are not nearly as interested in acquiring valuable intelligence as they are in meting out draconian punishments to satisfy a primal urge for revenge, even it comes at the expense of obtaining useful information. I mean, what else are we to conclude from this whole charade? The suspect is talking. He didn’t have to be sent to Gitmo. He didn’t have to be waterboarded. If he’s cooperating with the FBI what the fuck does it matter if he was read his rights?

Of course, we know that Gingrich and his ilk are playing politics with the underwear bomber because they raised no stink about the Bush administration’s handling of Richard Reid, which was the same. This is a calculated move by them. They are simply appealing to the lizard-brained folk. And it’s probably working. The politics of fear usually does.

- Max Canning