WASHINGTON. Where do all these political opinion historians we see on TV come from? We see them bloviating daily on all the cable news networks. One of the regular favorites, Newt Gingrich, recently attempted to come to our Constitutional rescue by unleashing his vast complex of historical gobbledygook the other night. It’s hardly a wonder that the likes of Beto O’Roarke and Elizabeth Warren, aka Pocahontas, also enjoy wallowing in what amounts to historical nonsense. And why are they there? As with Newt, it’s a way to get free TV face time.
So this helps explain what much of what the typical man-on-the-street knows if he learns it in the common square.
Beto, Pocahontas and Newt offer the latest in disinformation
Early last week on Fox (1-15-19), Laura Ingraham offered a segment spotlighting former burglar and drunk driver, Robert Francis (Beto) O’Rourke and former Indian Princess Elizabeth Pocahontas Warren. Ingraham highlighted their various pontifications regarding the US Constitution.
Better yet, she had Newt Gingrich waiting in the wings. Oh, boy, oh boy, we can’t wait.
Both Warren and Beto have served in Congress. Presumably, they have taken the well-known oath regarding their duty to protect and defend the Constitution. (Presuming they have read the Constitution. They may or may not have. Who knows?) Assuming they are honest people and knew what they were swearing to uphold, then they apparently do not know the history of that document, nor do they understand its content.
Gasbaggery at its finest
Pocahontas gasbagged forth, reciting the Democrats’ mantra. Mainly that, in its righteous might, the majority wins. The majority of Democrats. For his part, Beto pondered the notion that a modern empire (subliminal slip) could still be able to operate under a legal document so outdated as our Constitution.
It would probably do little good to explain to Warren — or Beto — that the people do not directly elect a president. The states (of people) do. America is not a pure democracy and never was. The men who drew up the Constitution recognized, as did Plato, that pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule. That’s why they made it hard for the mob to rule by creating the electoral college to reflect the will of the various states in the republic. Perhaps Warren’s ancient tribal DNA haunts her when it comes to this issue. Again, who knows?
And who can possibly interpret Beto’s unconstitutional reasoning? Obviously, he has some kind of mind-soulmate relationship with the equally addled Alexandria-Casio-Cortez. You would love to be a fly on the wall listening in when these two attempt to exchange “intelligent’ thoughts.
Newt Gingrich to the rescue
So, it’s great European historian and former Rockefeller acolyte, Newton Leroy Gingrich to the rescue. So step aside, Beto. Move over, Senator Warren. As always, the darling of the out-of-touch neocons and delusional would-be conservatives, Newt Gingrich, will clatter on for those in the TV audience who eagerly await his historical mastery.
We know this because Ingraham’s introduction begins, “Now for a history lesson for…”
Newt explains it all to you
First, Newt begins by railing a bit against “the left.” He then explains that the Constitution simply doesn’t permit certain things that the left eagerly desires. He continues with the simplistic assumption that Donald Trump would actually have won the popular vote had California’s vote tally not been counted. (Except that it was.)
Someone should tell this Ph.D. in European history that the US Constitution does not “permit” anything. The various states did not (would not) ratify any document purporting to give them permission to do anything. The Constitution denies government authority over God-given rights. It ain’t a place you go for a permit.
Finally, amusing us further with his scholarly insights, Newt suggests that “under the current rules,” Trump knew he didn’t need California’s vote.
Presumably, these “current rules” are the cumbersome process described in Article 2 regarding the Electoral process. To change it would require the amending process described in Article 5. This process is hardly a procedure for casually tinkering with some “current” rules. Rules are for things like baseball and hide-and-go-seek, Mr. Speaker-historian.
Where do these commentators come from? And why are they there?
It’s not clear what the intellectual hierarchy is for today’s current, sorry crop of TV historians. Likely, none of us really cares. But Newt Gingrich seems to get a large dose of exposure along with other tellers of tales such as Doris Kerns Goodwin Douglas Brinkley, Victor Davis Hanson or my personal favorite, Brian Kilmeade, the authoritarian of New Orleans.
So why is this true? And where is this going?
The why is probably money. That makes sense.
But as for the where? It’s clear the world of academia today had long ago faded into the realm of know-nothingness. We need look no further than Pocahontas or Newt. Or Beto O’Rourke for that matter. But as to where intellect and history are going, we seem to be at the edge of an abyss.
Finally, to the man on the street: stay out of the common square. There is nothing intelligent there.