Gingrich: Child labor laws "truly stupid"

[BigSkyBob]

The quote does not suggest that Newt thinks it should be legal for children to work (well maybe a paper route or something, but nothing that would materially interfere with schooling), but rather the poor schools are all the more disgraceful because children must attend them. Yes, it was clumsy. But then Newt can be clumsy. But the headline per the quote is totally false and misleading. It should be changed. Children working as janitors part time however is also inane in general.  Sigh.

Of course, it is generally too late by teenager time. The intervention needs to be at around 3 years of age, not 14 years of age. That is where we need to focus our resources first and foremost.

Yes, Newt would lose if nominated. I know, I know. I know I could never vote for him. He is a dangerous man, for reasons that have nothing to do with legalizing children working part time.

I won't vote for Newt in the primary because he is a moderate whom had the most liberal voting record of any Republican South of the Mason-Dixon line for years. That has absolutely nothing to do with his correctly noting that some high-school age kids in failing schools would probably be better off cleaning those schools part-time for pay than attending them. That is quite an indictment of those schools.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I see a clever politician here. He throws in an inflammatory comment that gets peoples' attention. Most moderates seem to react with a "he has a point, but he went too far in his comment"

This enables the person who made the comment to say, next time it comes up, "look, the issue isn't what words you use, but to solve the problem. I care passionately about my country and when you get passionate, etc. But unlike my opponent I see the problem and I'm coming up with solutions"

And so on. That's how politics is played. You set the agenda and the formulation isn't going to matter in the long run.

This has been the Republican approach to politics for the last three decades, basically. The only problem is that, after a generation of listening to that sort of rhetoric, there are now people that believe it completely. The result of that sort of strategy is what we've had since the beginning of the Bush administration; a progressively more and more right-wing Republican Party and a Democratic Party that has become more and more centrist, to the point that people now try to compromise between the far-right and centrism, creating some weird bastardized version of the "center" in American politics that solves absolutely no problems and has basically made the left irrelevant.

Sure, I grant you it's a smart political strategy, but the governing consequences of it have been a catastrophe.

Also I fail to see what point you could possibly be having by talking about reducing or eliminating child labor laws anyway, especially since he actually singles out 9-14 year olds. I wish the idea that Newt is some sort of genius policymaker would go away, already. He's been nothing but a con-man since he left congress.

[Wonkish1]

I see a clever politician here. He throws in an inflammatory comment that gets peoples' attention. Most moderates seem to react with a "he has a point, but he went too far in his comment"

This enables the person who made the comment to say, next time it comes up, "look, the issue isn't what words you use, but to solve the problem. I care passionately about my country and when you get passionate, etc. But unlike my opponent I see the problem and I'm coming up with solutions"

And so on. That's how politics is played. You set the agenda and the formulation isn't going to matter in the long run.

This has been the Republican approach to politics for the last three decades, basically. The only problem is that, after a generation of listening to that sort of rhetoric, there are now people that believe it completely. The result of that sort of strategy is what we've had since the beginning of the Bush administration; a progressively more and more right-wing Republican Party and a Democratic Party that has become more and more centrist, to the point that people now try to compromise between the far-right and centrism, creating some weird bastardized version of the "center" in American politics that solves absolutely no problems and has basically made the left irrelevant.

Sure, I grant you it's a smart political strategy, but the governing consequences of it have been a catastrophe.

Also I fail to see what point you could possibly be having by talking about reducing or eliminating child labor laws anyway, especially since he actually singles out 9-14 year olds. I wish the idea that Newt is some sort of genius policymaker would go away, already. He's been nothing but a con-man since he left congress.

Really? This has been the strategy of the Republican party for a few decades now? Did you just come up with that now because it sounded good?

See I thought that for the 8 years following the millenium the Bush administration's approach was a(simplified) vs. b(simplified), I'm for A without a decent argument to go along with it all. At least today both Newt and Romney are capable of actually producing a cogent and well though out argument to things.

And on the left the Dems traded out a slick genius like Willy for the driest idiot in the world(Gore), followed by dull platitude master like Kerry, and the several years of calling into question the motives of your opponents in Obama instead of being for his own agenda.

That looks like a pretty good summary to me of the messaging strategies of both parties since the 90s.

[Wonkish1]

I see a clever politician here. He throws in an inflammatory comment that gets peoples' attention. Most moderates seem to react with a "he has a point, but he went too far in his comment"

This enables the person who made the comment to say, next time it comes up, "look, the issue isn't what words you use, but to solve the problem. I care passionately about my country and when you get passionate, etc. But unlike my opponent I see the problem and I'm coming up with solutions"

And so on. That's how politics is played. You set the agenda and the formulation isn't going to matter in the long run.

This has been the Republican approach to politics for the last three decades, basically. The only problem is that, after a generation of listening to that sort of rhetoric, there are now people that believe it completely. The result of that sort of strategy is what we've had since the beginning of the Bush administration; a progressively more and more right-wing Republican Party and a Democratic Party that has become more and more centrist, to the point that people now try to compromise between the far-right and centrism, creating some weird bastardized version of the "center" in American politics that solves absolutely no problems and has basically made the left irrelevant.

Sure, I grant you it's a smart political strategy, but the governing consequences of it have been a catastrophe.

Also I fail to see what point you could possibly be having by talking about reducing or eliminating child labor laws anyway, especially since he actually singles out 9-14 year olds. I wish the idea that Newt is some sort of genius policymaker would go away, already. He's been nothing but a con-man since he left congress.

Really? This has been the strategy of the Republican party for a few decades now? Did you just come up with that now because it sounded good?

See I thought that for the 8 years following the millenium the Bush administration's approach was a(simplified) vs. b(simplified), I'm for A without a decent argument to go along with it all. At least today both Newt and Romney are capable of actually producing a cogent and well though out argument to things.

And on the left the Dems traded out a slick genius like Willy for the driest idiot in the world(Gore), followed by dull platitude master like Kerry, and the several years of calling into question the motives of your opponents in Obama instead of being for his own agenda.

That looks like a pretty good summary to me of the messaging strategies of both parties since the 90s.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Really? This has been the strategy of the Republican party for a few decades now? Did you just come up with that now because it sounded good?

There is absolutely no question on the fact that our politics has taken a significant right-ward drift over the last few decades. This is a present phenomenon in most other first world nations, but it's easily the worst and most noticeable in America. This has been, largely, accomplished by Republicans regularly staking out positions further and further to the right and demanding Democrats meet them in the middle.

That "middle" is not the middle anymore.

It's been a genius strategy for Republicans getting all sorts of progress on the issues they want, but the only problem they've had is their inability to stop. It's easy to take further and further right-wing positions back in the 80s, and even the 90s, but we've approached the point where it's practically impossible to take further right-wing positions without just advocating the elimination of government entirely. You can't cut taxes, for example, in perpetuity.

And part of the reason it's been a smart strategy is that the Democrats are idiots and fall for it every time. They basically tried to be Republican-lite from 2001-2006. They're the Charlie Brown of this Lucy & the football scenario. Always being the responsible do-gooder governing party that believes if you can come together in negotiation then we can find a solution that makes everyone happy. The problem is that your side is not interested in governing in good faith.

What started as a fairly smart way of getting concessions in the 80s and 90s and tilting American politics in a more centrist/center right direction has led us to a situation where the Republican Party has become so far right-wing that it resembles those crazy minarchist and borderline-fascist parties of European countries that routinely get 2-ish% of the vote.

[Wonkish1]

Really? This has been the strategy of the Republican party for a few decades now? Did you just come up with that now because it sounded good?

There is absolutely no question on the fact that our politics has taken a significant right-ward drift over the last few decades. This is a present phenomenon in most other first world nations, but it's easily the worst and most noticeable in America. This has been, largely, accomplished by Republicans regularly staking out positions further and further to the right and demanding Democrats meet them in the middle.

That "middle" is not the middle anymore.

It's been a genius strategy for Republicans getting all sorts of progress on the issues they want, but the only problem they've had is their inability to stop. It's easy to take further and further right-wing positions back in the 80s, and even the 90s, but we've approached the point where it's practically impossible to take further right-wing positions without just advocating the elimination of government entirely. You can't cut taxes, for example, in perpetuity.

And part of the reason it's been a smart strategy is that the Democrats are idiots and fall for it every time. They basically tried to be Republican-lite from 2001-2006. They're the Charlie Brown of this Lucy & the football scenario. Always being the responsible do-gooder governing party that believes if you can come together in negotiation then we can find a solution that makes everyone happy. The problem is that your side is not interested in governing in good faith.

What started as a fairly smart way of getting concessions in the 80s and 90s and tilting American politics in a more centrist/center right direction has led us to a situation where the Republican Party has become so far right-wing that it resembles those crazy minarchist and borderline-fascist parties of European countries that routinely get 2-ish% of the vote.

What is it with folks who can't stay on topic and have to run around on different tangents? We were just talking about messaging strategies and now we're talking about how much parties are moving in one direction or another. I'm more than welcome to discuss that, but that isn't the topic we were just discussing.


And seeing as how tax revenue as a percentage of GDP isn't to far off from its historical average and spending is marching higher and higher as a percentage of GDP it would seem to me that its the Dems that are getting what they want(if you want me to pull out the charts for the 4th time I will). You can't spend and spend in perpetuity...it can have some disastrous consequences as evidenced by Europe today.

The rest of you drivel is your opinion and pretty easy to knock flat. You just think your side is pure so its easy for you to believe that its the GOP who are "being extreme".

And then the fascism and monarchism crap drops because you know your not very good at arguing things.


And none of this argument has anything to do with a messaging strategy. Apparently you have trouble keeping subject matter separated in your mind.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The rest of you drivel is your opinion and pretty easy to knock flat. You just think your side is pure so its easy for you to believe that its the GOP who are "being extreme".

On the contrary, the reason I posted what I did is because the results are pretty hard to argue with. It cannot be seriously disputed that the Democratic Party has abdicated nearly all left-wing instincts that they once had, or that the Republican Party has basically gone off the deep end.

I don't particularly care what your view of messaging effectiveness in the last 30 years is. What I care about is the right-ward drift of American politics in the last few decades, a drift that is inseparable from the political strategy of the right, and a drift that is simply empirical.

[Wonkish1]

On the contrary, the reason I posted what I did is because the results are pretty hard to argue with. It cannot be seriously disputed that the Democratic Party has abdicated nearly all left-wing instincts that they once had, or that the Republican Party has basically gone off the deep end.

I don't particularly care what your view of messaging effectiveness in the last 30 years is. What I care about is the right-ward drift of American politics in the last few decades, a drift that is inseparable from the political strategy of the right, and a drift that is simply empirical.

Well again your just changing the subject from pointing out that Newt's messaging strategy of attaching an attention seeking term to a good argument is the same as the GOP's for the last couple decades to now talking about the drift in the parties. That isn't what you cared about a few posts ago when you claimed that Newts messaging strategy was the same as the GOP's.

Furthermore, I would like you show me how the Democratic party under Obama is more right wing today than under Bill Clinton and since you claimed that its empirical then please show me that empirically. I'm looking forward to this.

[pbrower2a]

What if when I was 14 years old I wanted to work and earn an income and child labor law prevented me from doing so?

Many of the wealthiest people in America got that way in a small part because they started businesses in their very early teens(that includes Buffett).

If a kid wants to work before the age of 16 they shouldn't be prevented from it. Especially considering that it is a good thing in very impoverished places in this country for kids to be able to earn an income if it will improve the situation.


And sweat shops is very extreme. Anybody that throws that crap around has got to be kidding.

We have plenty of laws on the books to protect children who would be especially vulnerable to exploitation or would be put in danger. Just because a kid wants to drink booze doesn't mean that he should be allowed to.

Child labor over a century was infamous for abuse and exploitation. Working-class children  started toiling early in life at the expense of schooling. Often it was the parents who shoved them out of the household... especially if the parents were worn out by the grueling toil normal for the time in industrial work and mining. If parents were worn out at age 40, then guess what happened to kids 8 years old at the time.

Today it is not so much the crass employers who would exploit child labor but instead abusive parents who would send their kids to do the work to support the booze and drug habits of the parents.

The problem is that pay fails to keep pace with productivity and is indeed being forced down. Children belong in school even if that means that they can't buy the latest fashions and fads. There will be plenty of time for those kids -- but as adults -- to participate in the crass materialism that is the American way of life.

Chores on the farm? That is different -- and farm kids are little the worse for wear for them.

What about kids that watch their parents work or help with the family business? Not too long ago I remember reading about a pizza place being busted for just that. And that's not the first time I've heard of a case like that either. Wonkish is correct, it's one thing to say we shouldn't have 8 year olds sticking their fingers in gears or stitching Nikes on assembly but the laws as they are now are patently absurd.

I have seen studies that show that a kid who works up to ten hours of work outside the household for pay isn't hurting his educational prospects. Those ten hours or so probably cut into TV and video games. Maybe ten hours a week in extracurricular activities not for pay (Scouting, 4H, church youth leagues, Junior ROTC, athletics, volunteer work) have much the same effect except not giving a kid some money for clothes, electronic entertainments, or 'partying'. Above ten hours? At such a point the bond between parent and adolescent is weakened, the kid is working to support things like a car that will be junk in a few years, or perhaps getting money for something very troubling. Adolescents need adult guidance by people interested in more (as is true with an employer) than productivity or filling a schedule.    

Some things -- sex, motor vehicle use, and materialism -- are legitimately for adults who can make informed, grown-up decisions. Adolescents need guidance by people who have interests other than immediate gain. An adolescent who misses out on the latest fashions, having a car, expensive 'partying' vacations, or electronic gadgetry is missing out on little. Even if the adolescent is competent  to make adult decisions at age 14 or so, it is most likely that that kid already has promise that needs to be honed if he is to become a high-achiever in a demanding career.

One thing that I have learned: although one can measure success in some respects by material achievement, people do not succeed because they are greedy and materialistic except in pathological bureaucracies. People can be extremely greedy and materialistic yet be complete schmucks, like drug traffickers; in contrast, people who don't need the status symbols and hedonistic indulgence as a spur to honest service and achievement are in some respects richer than those insecure enough to believe that if they are somehow 'better' than others if they drink a more expensive whiskey or drive a more expensive car.  

[Wonkish1]

What if when I was 14 years old I wanted to work and earn an income and child labor law prevented me from doing so?

Many of the wealthiest people in America got that way in a small part because they started businesses in their very early teens(that includes Buffett).

If a kid wants to work before the age of 16 they shouldn't be prevented from it. Especially considering that it is a good thing in very impoverished places in this country for kids to be able to earn an income if it will improve the situation.


And sweat shops is very extreme. Anybody that throws that crap around has got to be kidding.

We have plenty of laws on the books to protect children who would be especially vulnerable to exploitation or would be put in danger. Just because a kid wants to drink booze doesn't mean that he should be allowed to.

Child labor over a century was infamous for abuse and exploitation. Working-class children  started toiling early in life at the expense of schooling. Often it was the parents who shoved them out of the household... especially if the parents were worn out by the grueling toil normal for the time in industrial work and mining. If parents were worn out at age 40, then guess what happened to kids 8 years old at the time.

Today it is not so much the crass employers who would exploit child labor but instead abusive parents who would send their kids to do the work to support the booze and drug habits of the parents.

The problem is that pay fails to keep pace with productivity and is indeed being forced down. Children belong in school even if that means that they can't buy the latest fashions and fads. There will be plenty of time for those kids -- but as adults -- to participate in the crass materialism that is the American way of life.

Chores on the farm? That is different -- and farm kids are little the worse for wear for them.

What about kids that watch their parents work or help with the family business? Not too long ago I remember reading about a pizza place being busted for just that. And that's not the first time I've heard of a case like that either. Wonkish is correct, it's one thing to say we shouldn't have 8 year olds sticking their fingers in gears or stitching Nikes on assembly but the laws as they are now are patently absurd.

I have seen studies that show that a kid who works up to ten hours of work outside the household for pay isn't hurting his educational prospects. Those ten hours or so probably cut into TV and video games. Maybe ten hours a week in extracurricular activities not for pay (Scouting, 4H, church youth leagues, Junior ROTC, athletics, volunteer work) have much the same effect except not giving a kid some money for clothes, electronic entertainments, or 'partying'. Above ten hours? At such a point the bond between parent and adolescent is weakened, the kid is working to support things like a car that will be junk in a few years, or perhaps getting money for something very troubling. Adolescents need adult guidance by people interested in more (as is true with an employer) than productivity or filling a schedule.    

Some things -- sex, motor vehicle use, and materialism -- are legitimately for adults who can make informed, grown-up decisions. Adolescents need guidance by people who have interests other than immediate gain. An adolescent who misses out on the latest fashions, having a car, expensive 'partying' vacations, or electronic gadgetry is missing out on little. Even if the adolescent is competent  to make adult decisions at age 14 or so, it is most likely that that kid already has promise that needs to be honed if he is to become a high-achiever in a demanding career.

One thing that I have learned: although one can measure success in some respects by material achievement, people do not succeed because they are greedy and materialistic except in pathological bureaucracies. People can be extremely greedy and materialistic yet be complete schmucks, like drug traffickers; in contrast, people who don't need the status symbols and hedonistic indulgence as a spur to honest service and achievement are in some respects richer than those insecure enough to believe that if they are somehow 'better' than others if they drink a more expensive whiskey or drive a more expensive car.  

Good response!

[pbrower2a]

So it seems to come down to this -- a little outside work that earns the equivalent of a middle-class allowance (let us say a paper route) isn't all bad. The kid has to go to bed at 8PM and miss some TV so that he can be delivering papers at 6AM. Household chores are part of growing up, and doing a little work in the family farm or restaurant is part of carrying on a family tradition that can be useful for a farmer or a small-business owner. But the key is that the work is limited in scope and is comparatively safe. Kids who do much adult work for near-adult pay are rarely learning anything necessary for becoming a competent adult. They tend to get stuck with long hours of work for at most marginal pay.   

For all his pretension to political acumen and knowledge of history, Newt Gingrich can be very, very wrong. For good reason we got kids out of the factories and mines and into schools, the latter capable of tuning adolescents into competent adults who can make decisions on their own.   

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Gingrich, of course, married at the age of 19.

[Wonkish1]

So it seems to come down to this -- a little outside work that earns the equivalent of a middle-class allowance (let us say a paper route) isn't all bad. The kid has to go to bed at 8PM and miss some TV so that he can be delivering papers at 6AM. Household chores are part of growing up, and doing a little work in the family farm or restaurant is part of carrying on a family tradition that can be useful for a farmer or a small-business owner. But the key is that the work is limited in scope and is comparatively safe. Kids who do much adult work for near-adult pay are rarely learning anything necessary for becoming a competent adult. They tend to get stuck with long hours of work for at most marginal pay.   

For all his pretension to political acumen and knowledge of history, Newt Gingrich can be very, very wrong. For good reason we got kids out of the factories and mines and into schools, the latter capable of tuning adolescents into competent adults who can make decisions on their own.   

You're seeming to marry an agreement that their might be some value in amending child labor laws a little with calling the person who called for that very wrong and ascribing a belief onto that same person he didn't make.

Why can't you just discuss the topic without trying to add an attack line towards someone in regards to something he didn't even say. Not everything has to be about making the other sides candidates look bad you can discuss policy without engaging in politicking.