Tag Archives: Charlie Rose

President Newt Gingrich — Could it happen?

Points made on Monday, January 23, on the Charlie Rose show about the Republican primary in South Carolina. Participants: Mathew Dowd, Bloomberg News and ABC News; John Meacham, Executive Editor, Random House, Contributing Editor, Time magazine; Nate Silver, 538-Blog, The New York Times.

Yes, it could happen, should there be a severe down-turn in the economy in the summer – an oil crisis, for example, or bad news from Europe. There was a 24-point shift in popularity in Newt’s favour in ten days.

Newt appeals to blue-collar, white America – which includes Reagan Democrats – Archie Bunker types.

The base of the Republican Party is NOT Wall Street, NOT the rich, but blue-collar, white America. The Republican establishment has lost control of the campaign.

It’s now a race between the good Newt Gingrich, disciplined, knows where he is going, and the bad Newt Gigrich, undisciplined, short-tempered, all over the place. Attacking the press as “despicable” on the issue of his personal life – three marriages! – was brilliant.

Newt is the new Nixon. Not the new Reagan.

Mitt appeals to the “Conservatesientsia.” It is forgotten that Newt, now waging a war against the Washington System, was part of the establishment when Speaker of the House.

Voters want a passionate, optimistic narrative. That is not in Mitt’s genes.

For Americans, voting for a president is the most important personal choice – outside family choices – they make in their lives. The President enters their living room every night.

In the Islam World: The Road from Autocracy to Democracy

The autocrats in Teheran have successfully resisted last year’s challenge in the streets. The question is inescapable whether it is realistic to hope for a transition to democracy after another attempt, without massive violence.

The answer is yes, there is a precedent: Turkey. Modern Turkey began in 1923 as a revolutionary, secular, reformist autocracy led by the former army officer Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, a disciple of the Western Enlightenment but no democrat. He was so bent on purging the Turkish state of religious influence that he ordered civil servants to shed their traditional fezzes in favor of Western-style bowler hats. (It has not always been known that he was a great womanizer. One of his conquests was a teen-age Zsa-Zsa Gabor. Or so she claimed.) His Turkey was a one-party state.

Since then the country has changed with the times. After WW2, Atatürk’s party lost an election and Turkey voluntarily turned itself into a modern multi-party state. In the 1980s, it abandoned protectionist policies and opened the door to liberal economic practices. In the 1990s, it yielded to international pressure and reduced its human rights violations. Now it is changing again and for the first time wishes to play a leadership role in the Middle East. This was unheard of before the year 2000. As a thriving democracy with a relatively booming economy, and as a NATO ally as well as a petitioner for membership in the European community, it may well prove to be eminently useful to the United States in its relationship with Teheran.

This is a point made by the former NY Times correspondent Stephen Kinzer in his new book, Reset: Iran, Turkey and America’s Future, and in his appearance as a guest of Charlie Rose. Kinzer believes that one reason Turkey is well qualified to play that role is that its leaders are good Muslims who pray every day. Turkey and Iran, he tells us, are the only Muslim countries in the Middle East with a strong indigenous democratic tradition.

Turkey has demonstrated by its own example that in the Muslim world a peaceful transition from autocracy to democracy is possible.