Newt Gingrich Misuses, Not Just Misquotes, the Declaration of Independence

In an article yesterday by Media Matters, Newt Gingrich is called out for misquoting the Declaration of Independence, although the article does acknowledge he correctly captured the gist. Gingrich goes on to use that language to raise rightwing policies--opposing women's choice in carrying pregnancies, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, and healthcare 'rationing'--to categorical imperatives commanded by the Declaration.

Apparently, I am told, his little piece of reporting claimed the attention of the Olbermann program.

But Media Matters, and Olbermann, miss the main point.

The Declaration of Independence is not the operating manual or contract by which the United States and the people govern themselves. Rather, it is a statement of principles justifying revolution. It contains no blueprint for governing, and could be used to justify anarchism. After all, if one is indeed endowed by a creator with inalienable rights, then nothing compels someone to accept any form of government.

The Constitution of the United States is our operating manual. Having revolted from Great Britain based upon the principles of the Declaration, the States first came together under the Articles of Confederation that was a failed experiment. The Constitution of the United States replaced the Articles after approval by the States. It is the contract that we have agreed to that defines our rights and the powers we have ceded to the Federal Government and the States.

Gingrich always conflates the Declaration and the Constitution into our "Founding Documents" because the Constitution is a fairly liberal document and makes no reference to god or a creator. That could not have been an accident. It was the conscious choice of our Founders. Gingrich enjoys the sophistry of extracting quotes from some of the Founders, in other situations, professing their beliefs in a "Divine Providence" or the "Almighty."

But, that only makes the case more compelling that their omission of references to god, or a creator, or the Bible, in the Constitution was deliberate. The "original intenters" on the Supreme Court should take notice.

It is not the Declaration, but The Preamble to the Constitution that sets forth the mission statement of the United States. The States, and people, joined to accomplish certain general agreed outcomes:

--To form a more perfect union (i.e., better than the Articles of Confederation);
--Establish justice; (Newt must have choked on this one).
--Ensure domestic tranquility;
--Provide for a common defense;
--Promote the general welfare (sorry, Newtie, that must hurt); AND,
--Ensure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity (could that mean our land, forests, rivers, streams and air? And, defend the Constitution against encroachment? Can't imagine Newt liking this one).

"AND" is actually the most important word in this string. It means that we have to serve all these goals, so that, for example, my liberty has to be limited by justice and the general welfare and the common defense; or, from another perspective that domestic tranquility and the common defense cannot be achieved at the expense of liberty and justice.

Media Matters, and then Olbermann, missed Newt's real agenda that is the same as it has always been: to use lies, misstatements and sophistry to mislead the American people.

Hopefully, they will see fit to point this out too.

Comments

[iloveconsistency]

From Newt.org

*****************************
Abrams asserts:

The Declaration of Independence is not the operating manual or contract by which the United States and the people govern themselves. Rather, it is a statement of principles justifying revolution. It contains no blueprint for governing, and could be used to justify anarchism. After all, if one is indeed endowed by a creator with inalienable [sic] rights, then nothing compels someone to accept any form of government.

Abrams would have a point about the Declaration justifying anarchism were it not for the fact that the document says the exact opposite:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

[iloveconsistency]

http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4321/default.aspx

[Doofus]

The gist of what Newt said was this:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32323

... ' If you go to the National Archives, you will find the words that are fundamental to America written in the Declaration of Independence.

All men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These words make us unique. We are the only country in history that says, “your personal rights come from God directly to you, the individual, and you loan the government sovereignty.”

That means if we truly believe that each of us is endowed by our creator with rights, then we have a deep moral obligation to save the unborn. It also means we have a deep moral obligation to care for them after they have been born.

That means that when judges like Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor judge Americans by their ethnicity or their gender, it’s wrong.

It also means that rationing health care is wrong. No government bureaucrat has the right to take from you the rights that God gave you. Rationing health care is inevitably limiting your life at the whim of a bureaucrat and at the manipulation of a politician. ...

[Doofus]

... This commitment to the principle of the sovereignty of the individual can guide us in profound ways in the coming months and years.

It means that we must have judges who understand that an America that has driven God from the public square will no longer be the America that has extended freedom and prosperity for 400 years.

It means understanding that individual rights and responsibilities are at the heart of our system, that there are no quotas and no group identities in the American system.

And it means understanding that at Jamestown, our first permanent settlement, they established the principle “if you will not work you will not eat” -- not for the poor but for the aristocrats who thought they could buy their way out of work. The work ethic was at the heart of our welfare reform in 1996. It is the most successful conservative reform in modern times. '

[Doofus]

Surprisingly enough, looks like Newt concludes that freely available healthcare is
an 'inalienable' right, per the Declaration of Independence. Or, if you wrap your
phraseology up in that esteemed document, you can say whatever the h.e.l.l.
you want & only vile, secular Democrats would dare to challenge you.

A 'commitment to the principle of the sovereignty of the individual can guide US
in profound ways in the coming months and years': this is intended to sustain
the GOP while it wanders in the wilderness, searching for lost credibility.

[Travis2008]

The document says "Creator". It does not say god.

[SamEllison]

Thank you!

[SisterArtemis]

Thanks for this perspective -- never a fan of Newt, I none-the-less have been a little confused by the near-outrage over his supposed "misquoting," since as many have noted, he did get the gist of it. I would term this a paraphrase, rather than a misquoting of the Declaration.

But as you rightly point out, there is a strong tendency to confuse the purpose of the Declaration -- a statement of revolt against Britain -- with the Constitution, which is truly a founding document since it shapes the form of our Government.. The Declaration is a powerful document, or rather the first part of it is (the list of grievances against King George, which forms the bulk of the historical statement sort of drags on, not to dismiss the importance of the list). But the Declaration, however inspiring, is not what guides our government. Critical attention to the Constitution might be a better focus for those supposed governance purists... and yet, it usually isn't, on the right or the left.

[NWGuy]

Of course, he misuses it. He is trying to sell a point of view. The difference between the Declaration and Constitution is, sadly, lost on many Americans, and Gingrich counts on that to push his agenda.

Keep shedding the light on Newt and his henchmen.

[WellTickleMeWillie]

I want to know why the ReThugs consistently ignore certain parts of the Constitution they don'yt like. Example: #5 - "Promote the general welfare " This could be the starting quotation for ever social and progressive bill introduced in Congress as justification.

And then there is the 2-nd admenment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Why are the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," always ignored by the NRA and other gun toting enthusiasts? This is the PREMISE for gun ownership and it is being conveniently and summarily ignored. The rightwing cannot continue to pick and choose only certain words from the Constitution, to justify heir illbegotten policies w/o extracting the ENTIRE sentence and meaning. This is another example of their hypocracy and lies.

[Poboy]

While you highlight the word "and" as your emphasis, and I think a case could be made for equality of the phrases, I think a stronger case could be made for ranking the phrases, with the most important listed first, especially if we use your words of the US Constitution's Preamble as a "mission statement."

To create a more perfect union, "justice" is numero uno. Justice for Black people, NOW.

Ensure domestic tranquility, number two, which means to care for its people.

Provide for a common defense, number three, sense the US was conceived without a standing army.

Promote the general welfare, number four, which will help with number two "and" number three.

Ensure the blessings of liberty, number five, which you cannot have without number one, justice.

Americans MUST accept the fact that justice is number one.

Americans must also accept the fact that the sophistry does not only come from the Newt.

President Obama, along with what seems like the entire Republican Party, claims his first duty is to keep Americans "safe," in trying to justify this military, police state.

Where does he get this crazy idea from, Neo-cons?

Where is this listed in the Preamble?

[goesto11]

If would have been nice to tell us what Newt actually said.

[Paul Abrams - Huffpost Blogger]

You're right. I should have linked to the Media Matters article that was up on HuffPo all day yesterday. Sorry.
Basically, he quoted the Declaration's statement that "we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That is not, exactly, what the Declaration said, and Media Matters (and Olbermann) pointed out that he misquoted, although still had the gist right.

My point is that he always misUSES the Declaration, whether or not he quotes it.

[jw]

You say, "Newt's real agenda that is the same as it has always been: to use lies, misstatements and sophistry to mislead the American people." This statement makes clear that you really understand Newt. He is morally, socially, and politically bankrupt.