But this entire article is psychobabble. It frames the opposition to Gingrich in purely psycho-emotional terms: they “fear” him.
Why isn't it enough to state the objective fact that they oppose him, and then analyze whether that opposition is or is not well-founded?
By framing it in psycho-emotional terms, the author is already dismissing, for all practical purposes, any legitimate objective basis for these people opposing Gingrich's candidacy.
Instead, the analysis hangs on the inference that these people oppose Gingrich for *purely* selfish reasons, and that no other reasons are a factor in their opposition.
First of all, the motives of these people are not knowable. Second of all, their motives are not relevant.
What is relevant is an examination of how Gingrich would govern, and the opinions of those who have actually served in government with him are one thing to consider. Assuming one doesn't shrug them off with the psychobabble that those opinions — regardless that one may disagree with them on substantive grounds — simply represent personal “fear” and “feeling threatened.”
Okay, but after watching Boehner cave and cave and cave again on budget deals, and after once liking him, I have yet to discover any principled stance he has ever taken. Boehner doesn’t believe in Conservative principles, or fight for them. He believes in maintaining the status quo.
Both of these guys say it better than I ever could:
America’s Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution
by Angelo Codevilla
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print
Newt Versus the Ruling Class
by L. Brent Bozell III
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48142