Why We Should Listen to Newt

Sure, he’s arrogant, calculating, and exceedingly polarizing. But Newt Gingrich’s statements, like his recent observation about blacks and food stamps, often come layered with truth.

STRAIGHT TALKER: GOP presidential candidate and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. (Wikipedia image)

The truth can come from an unlikely messenger. Like in Numbers 22:30, when God made a donkey talk to Balaam, a prophet who had veered far from God’s purpose.

Newt Gingrich has been an unexpected source of truth during the campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, which is why I hope he stays in the race and keeps talking. Gingrich’s comments have been eye opening, like when he called Congressman Paul Ryan’s economic plan “right-wing social engineering,” and then was forced to backtrack. He’s arrogant, impulsive, and morally flawed, but also smart and shrewd. Gingrich often veers from the typical political talking points and says what he truly believes. He expresses volatile thoughts that many people hold and act on privately, but won’t say publicly. Gingrich’s fellow GOP candidate Rep. Ron Paul has a similar proclivity to say what he thinks without filters. The other night, for instance, Paul was once again trying to deflect criticism about his racist newsletter from 20 years ago when he spoke about the unfairness of the criminal justice toward blacks — not exactly a topic you’ll find many Republican politicians addressing, especially one who’s running for president. Unfortunately, none of the reporters followed up with a question about what Paul has been doing about those racial disparities as a congressman or what he would do as president.

Suffice it to say, without Gingrich and Paul in the race, the political dialogue would be far less lively and informative.

Gingrich’s latest episode of unexpurgated candor is especially worth noting. The former Speaker of the House, who has a history of wandering into politically incorrect territory regarding race in America, riled the blogsphere and pundits recently with a comment about blacks and food stamps. Gingrich often refers to President Obama as the “food stamp president” because Americans are receiving the aid at the highest levels in history. The reference is also Gingrich’s way of reminding white voters that Obama is black.

During a speech to a majority-white audience prior to the New Hampshire Primary, Gingrich said:

“And so I’m prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention to talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.”

“Insensitive,” “race baiter,” and “bigot,” were among the predictable names critics called him. The NAACP issued its standard condemning response, with the group’s president Benjamin Todd Jealous calling the remarks “inaccurate and divisive.” But perhaps Gingrich has actually done us a favor.

While clearly provocative, Gingrich’s food stamp flap unexpectedly caused the news media to focus on and dispel a longstanding racial stereotype that blacks are the main beneficiaries of food stamp handouts — a stereotype the media perpetuates. The truth is that the face of food stamps and poverty in America is white.

Gingrich triggered CBS and some other news outlets to report that whites represent 59 percent of the households on food stamps, while blacks are 28 percent, according to the U.S. Census. Previous published reports indicated that poverty is on the rise among whites, increasing 53 percent in the majority white suburbs compared to 23 percent in the cities. Two-thirds of the new suburban poor were added between 2007 (the year the economy tanked under the Bush administration) and 2010.

It would seem that poverty is something the majority-white Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements could unite over, along with the civil rights and faith communities. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was leading a race-neutral Poor People’s Campaign and was also speaking out against the Vietnam War when he was assassinated in 1968. King understood what really mattered. His eyes were opened. However, savvy politicians also know they can rely on racism and class to divide voters and advance their own agendas.

The food stamp story also unveiled how the major news organizations often contribute to keeping Americans in the dark. Many of us probably don’t realize that reporter David Weigel of Slate.com, who attended the Gingrich speech and was reportedly the first to tweet the comment, may have done so because he is anti-Republican. Media columnist Richard Prince reminded readers that Weigel resigned from the Washington Post in 2010 from his gig blogging about conservatives after it was revealed that he had disparaged Republicans in a deeply personal way on a listserv. The Post owns the liberal-leaning Slate.com. In his blog, Weigel posted the Gingrich comment without providing proper context, then feigned surprise that others did the same. I suspect Weigel knows, as most bloggers do, that the volatile mix of race and politics often generates lots of reader page views and retweets on the Web — especially if the talker is a polarizer like Gingrich.

As Numbers 22:30 teaches, the messenger might be an ass (or even an elephant), but we ought to pay attention. There’s truth between the lines.

About the author, Wil LaVeist

Wil LaVeist is an award-winning journalist, professional speaker, and author of Fired Up: 4 Steps to Overcoming a Crisis, Including Unemployment. Contact him at www.WILLAVEIST.com, and listen to The Wil LaVeist Show Wednesdays at Noon to 1 p.m. on 88.1 WHOV in Hampton, Virginia.
  1. It is so refreshing to read remarks of someone who actually “gets it” I heard those very words spoken by Newt Gingrich and I cannot imagine anyone black, white, or other that would not prefer a paycheck vs some temporary help like food stamps. Those of us who have had to depend on this kind of help knows how demeaning and for all that they put you through is no where near sustaining for a family. Anyone other than someone who was looking for a reason to bring race into a conversation would agree with Gingrich on that statement. In fact, most republicans are NOT at all sympathetic to the low income or working class people. Gingrich has stated over and over that he would NOT allow ss to be touched, wants to work on fixing the program with a choice for younger people. AND wants to stop tax increases! He has said over and over we are taxed enough and DC needs to stop spending. I admire your article.

    • It also should be noted that while the majority of food stamp receipients are white. The MAJORITY of blacks receive food stamps. The latest statistics have shown this just this past month. Thus, gingrich’s statement was right on..and the news media who dare say should actually READ what people say jumped on just the race part of the statement. As usual.

  2. Pingback: Mulcair gathering steam in NDP race, Wikipedia tea leaves suggest - SCREW THE SYSTEM

  3. This commentary encourages us to pay close attention and read between the lines of what the politicians are saying, even if we don’t care much for the messenger. Gingrich’s self-serving food stamp comment brought out the actual truth. Most food stamp recipients are white not black. Since there are about 40 million blacks in America and 9 million actually receive food stamps, the majority of blacks do not receive food stamps. About 70% of food stamp recipients are children, elderly and or disabled, yet the prevailing stereotype is that the majority of food stamp recipients are lazy black single moms who otherwise could work. We might ask ourselves how did this become the stereotype and why?

  4. I would not have immediately thought it was a racist statement. I would think it was one of failed economic policy. That since Obama has become president that the need for food stamps–by whoever–has risen.

  5. It is so great to see someone not block out or automatically think that everything someone says or does who is in a different political party than the one they ascribe to, is wrong. Going to spread the word about this Newsletter

    • This is the first article I have read from this newsletter so I don’t even know what party the author ascribes to and that’s good. We need to learn to deal with the issues and not be clouded by political parties and definitely not by the mostly Liberal media