Thucy, is entertaining how blind you are to your own statements.
Simply substitute "Obama" for "Gingrich" and you get the same thing, an ideologue.
Teenagers are so naive.
The answer is to limit the power of government to restrict the damage and ideologue can do to society.

The problem with Dr. TC's prescription is that it serves to exacerbate the power within society of organizations n

The problem with Dr. TC's prescription is that it serves to exacerbate the power within society of organizations not subject to periodic scrutiny by the public. Now, if we were to have a truly confiscatory estate tax and a drastic revision in the rights and duration of limited-liability organizations, Dr. TC might be on to something. As is, however, his prescription for society has as an inevitable side effect the growth of oligarchy, which has been proven time and time again to be a really, really shitty idea for social organization. Compared to oligarchy and the inevitable trends which it produces (either violent revolution leading to terror, or paramilitary death squads roaming around unaccountable, disappearing those who question the social order), I'll take sclerotic, overreaching bureaucracy any day.

If you're an ideologue, you're not a conservative. That's kind of the opposite of what conservatism is.

http://www.redstate.com/nikitas3/2010/07/19/conservatism-is-not-an-ideology/

And there are a GOD damn lot of ideologues in the Republican Party nowadays. They're not conservative anymore. They're just right-wing.

Clarification: if you're calling it "conservatism," it's an ideology.

Here's a line from that article that I linked to which proves MY point straight up, and proves the author's ironically:

"That is why American conservatives are inclined toward belief systems – not ideologies – that generally work for the good of the majority like capitalism, the Christian faith and military strength and preparedness."

Three internets to anyone who can explain the difference between a belief system and an ideology.

TC I am not saying obama is not an ideologue.

I am referring to a discussion from weeks ago.

What I said:

There are two kinds of politicians:

A) One kind who will do anything to get elected just because he is ambitious and wants to wield power. Ideology does not mean a thing to this person. Neither does good government, except to the extent that it allows them to wield power. Democracy, thankfully, is a system where this kind of person is turned into a quasi-positive force, often, since he is forced to pander to the wishes of the people, similar to the same thing a market economy does with irredeemably selfish people.

B) People who are committed to a set of ideals, regardless of what they are or how they map onto a political spectrum, get into politics and commence to say and do anything to get themselves elected in order to implement these ideas.

I was saying Romney is A, Gingrich (and indeed Obama) is B.

Also AWB for my puposes a set of beliefs is nothing more than a personal ideology. If you object to my use of the term ideology and ideologue to refer to someone who subscribes to their own set of beliefs, sorry. We can look for another term.

Forget ideologue, and just take this thread as me proving that Gingrich is a "B" not an "A," which, in the context of the moonbase, someone questioned earlier, saying Gingrich didn't believe that and was just pandering, supposedly proving has was an A. This is my response. That is all.

Obama is actually far less of an ideologue - and by that metric, more of a conservative - than Bush 43 was.

And I dispute the classifying of politicians into two types. It's a bit more complicated than that.

No no. Forget liberal and conservative. I have no use for that here.

A and B. Whatever the beliefs may be is not important. Just what is motivating them to get into politics is all.

Of course people are usually a mix of A and B, but can you think of other reasons to get into politics?

There is a possible addition, but I think it is more a subset

Someone who is pressured by other people to get into politics. The people doing the pressuring may be A's or B's.

Where's Paul? First half of (B) sounds absolutely right, but he really doesn't say and do anything to get himself elected.

Maybe expand to have (C) people pressured by others [I'm thinking, for instance, if Mitch Daniels were to run for president now, it would probably be an example of (C) playing out, even if he in general is not a (C) politician] and (D) be the extremely rare variant of (B) that doesn't lie and wheel-n-deal his ass off to win [Paul].

And yeah Gingrich is obviously a (B) here imo.

There are quite a few towns in Louisiana where the mayor and a good chunk of the city council are company men.

http://www.shawgrp.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Holden

It's not so much an individual deciding to get into politics for whatever perception of whatever public good and moreso dudes with money who want their boy in office. The politician does not act of his own accord. He exercises power on behalf of another.

Okay that's true, there are some D's. It's just that... they are very very rare. Lol. And they tend to never get elected. Maybe I'm being cynical but okay I will admit you a D.

RE: your facebook status thread PE, B is a realist, D is an idealist. Both serve ideas though. A has no ideological rudder at all, except if personal enrichment can be called ideology.

And idk perhaps C as I said is not so relevant, because after all the people behind a C will still be and will advocate for their C an A, B, or D strategy.

Wait with all the alphabet flying by in pieces I don't get this thread.

Doesn't the article prove that Gingrich is A rather than B?!?

Gingrich is absolutely A. Just look at the diary pages that were leaked. Look at how he excoriated Bain Capital, sounding more like a Socialist Worker's Party candidate than a Republican. Look at how he did that ad with Nancy Pelosi in a desperate bid to stay relevant. Look at his wild exaggerations of his role in ending the Cold War, as if a junior member of the minority party in the House of Representatives was in any position to guide the destiny of nations. Look at how he champions the rule of law and then says he wants to arrest federal judges and haul them before Congress to explain controversial decisions. He'd be perfect to run a think tank and did some splendid things in 1994 and 1995. But apart from that there's little to like.

He's been consistent politically in that he's always been a member of the Republican party. Not much else, apart from cheating on his wives. Gingrich as the nominee would lose to Obama and lead to the Democrats holding the Senate at the very least, if not retaking the House. And in the nightmare alternate universe where he did get in I'd be extremely concerned about how he'd behave once he got the office. Obama may be drowning the country in unsustainable debt and spending, but at least he seems like a good man.

^Thank you.

Someone who is a B will *do and say anything* to get elected *so that* they can implement their ideas.

Therefore it doesn't matter if what Gingrich is saying is inconsistent with his ideals. If he thinks it will help him win, then the end of his election justifies those means in his book. That's why he's a B and not a C or D or whatever the "straight-shooter" Ron Paul "I don't lie" type was.

And just because he is a narcissist doesn't mean he's not a B. He just thinks he's super smart and that his ideas will save the world. Like I said usually it's a little of both but Gingrich is in this because he actually thinks he would be the best president.