While reading a tale of adventure and combat on the high
seas, say a novel by Patrick O’Brian or C.S. Forester, I can recall
a vivid description of two ships of the line, engaged in a deadly
duel, in which one of the vessels manages to inflict a particularly
crushing fusillade on its opponent, described
in a phrase both gripping and terrifying: “raking fire on the
stern.”
Since all the guns in the ships of the Napoleonic era were
on the sides, the stern was particularly vulnerable and the
continuous fire brought to bear on it was
devastating. Of course, if the attacker was not
careful, he might be outmaneuvered and find himself at the mercy of
his previously vulnerable opponent.
For reasons not very hard to fathom, thoughts of raking
fire and other unpleasant things seem to impinge on my
consciousness while considering the Republican presidential
primary.
The GOP contest is getting
serious. Amateur night is
over. There are basically two contenders, meaning
no disrespect to Senator Santorum who has conducted himself
honorably while articulating values important to this writer at
least.
However, we also have a contender who, like Napoleon, has
been in extended exile for many years, and now has returned to
Paris, scratch that, South Carolina and points south, to rally the
populace against an opponent he seeks to smear as the embodiment of
money-grubbing capitalism who, horrors, does not pay more taxes
than the law requires of him. Moreover, that
opponent, the capitalist that is, was a successful one who garnered
efficiencies, generated growth, multiplied jobs and created value
for investors — including pension funds which, gentle reader, you
may have some stake in seeing prosper.
It is obvious, but nevertheless important, to note that
our latter-day Napoleon does not cite any violations of law or
ethics that would anyway impugn the integrity of his
target. Still, he generates a lot of smoke to
create the impression that something must be wrong, after all, the
fellow made a lot of money, right? He has become
a stalking horse of Obama and the Democrats.
Of course, this neo-Napoleon also made a lot of money,
although a lot less than the target of his demagogic
attacks. But just about every dollar he earned,
with the exception of a few books he coauthored, was basically
built on whatever residual influence, maybe even some insight, he
might have in or on our imperial city on the
Potomac. What exactly was the value added to the
commonwealth by holding hands for various large corporations or
playing court historian for the proximate cause of our housing
market meltdown — for $1.6 million!
Full disclosure time: In June, on this
very website, I
opined that “Newt has not yet come to grips with the fact that
he is a dead man walking.” I got that one
wrong. That comes from living in Washington for
ten years, I guess. In truth, I did not think
much of the former Speaker of the House before his most recent
tirades against free market actors such as Governor
Romney. Here’s a test: of his countless ideas, schemes,
programs and other pronouncements, name two of Newt Gingrich’s top
ideas which ring your bell. I mean other than
his shot at GOP House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) for
social engineering.
In retrospect, Ryan’s
retort to Gingrich appears to have been
prophetic. “With allies like that, who needs the
left,” quipped Ryan.
Newt has certainly risen from the dead, but what we have
now is a fellow who is willing to destroy the most crucial argument
for removing President Obama and his congressional caucus from
power and subvert the fundamental premise of the party of
Lincoln: the need to restore primacy to the free
market and civil society, without undue burdens of taxation and
regulation, which is essential for liberty to prevail in the land
of the free.
Even if Newt Gingrich wins the primary, he will certainly
lose in November, not just because of historically low approval
ratings, but because he has undermined the very rationale for
Republican governance.
I live in Virginia where Gingrich did not make it on the
ballot, which will relieve me of the temptation to cast a purely
negative vote. I will, be voting for Mitt
Romney. He has succeeded where the former Speaker
did not — in the realms of family and
commerce.
