Thirty-five years ago, Peart outlined a very convincing vision of early 22nd century socio-political culture in the lyrics and the attendant liner notes to the twenty-minute-long title suite of his band's album, 2112. (A historical document which has grown in importance and influence since it was bestowed upon a group of eleven-year-olds in suburban New Jersey by one of those eleven-year-olds' older brother, Pat, in 1982.)

The vaporphone, for starters. Should such a thing exist in 2112, it would not, presumably, be called a "vaporphone." As Peart told us, the citizens of all the planets that will have survived the intergalactic war of 2062 will live under the rule of the collectivist Solar Federation, in the cities that sprawl out around the great grey-walled Temples of Syrinx. Life will be pleasant, if a bit dull, under the Federation's red-star banners. The populace of one city, Megadon, for example, will spend their time "Just plugging into [the] machine for the day, then watching Templevision or reading a Temple Paper in the evening."

Vaporphone? Excuse me, "Templephone."

In fact, it seems unlikely that students in 2112 will be allowed to read anything at all about a figure like Newt Gingrich. Federation life will be controlled by the priests of the Temples of Syrinx, who will ensure equality for all by strictly regulating all information available to the populace. "Our books, our music, our work and play [will all be] looked after by the benevolent wisdom of the priests..."

The priests will frown on the discussion of history in general. They will "have no need for ancient ways." And they would be particularly adverse to someone like Gingrich, clearly a member of the "elder race of man," who has heroic ideas about individualist entitlement and Randian concepts of sexual conquest.

If we have learned anything from Peart's work on the subject, a man like Gingrich, a visionary comparable to say, the light-bringing electrician Equality 7-2521 or the rapist architect Howard Roark, would have no place in the "cold and empty life" brought about by the Federation's social engineering. "Think about the average," the priests would say. "The brotherhood of man." Education about someone like Gingrich "doesn't fit the plan."

Gingrich, in Collins' own telling, is a man of passion! Larger than life, unrestrained by rules of fairness or logic or scientific reality. I mean, he would probably want to colonize both moons over Megadon! He is an ubermensch. Does she actually think that Syrinxian Priests will let impressionable young students read about a man like that on their Templephones? Ha! In 2112?! We should be so lucky.

---

See more posts by Dave Bry

4 comments

Photo by fotum, via Shutterstock

---

See more posts by Alex Balk

23 comments

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

10 comments

MITT ROMNEY
New York Times
—February 28, 1960

By the time of this family portrait in the Times, George Romney had been on the cover of Time, having made millions as head of American Motors Corporation. His son, as a classmate would later tell a Boston Globe reporter, was still “tall, skinny, gawky [and] had a bad complexion.”

GARY JOHNSON
Albuquerque Journal—December 4, 1976



’76 was a good year for Mr. Johnson: just out of college, he founded Big J Enterprises, a construction firm he’d sell for a profit more than twenty years later, and married Denise Simms. 
Bride and groom "both of Albuquerque."

Years later, in 1993, Gary Johnson was a political unknown with a bad haircut, as evidenced in this August 14th The New Mexican profile. He now has an awesome haircut.

MICHELE BACHMANN
Winona Daily News—April 13, 1977

Michele Amble’s push for the legalization of booze on her college campus presaged her fondness for beer companies, from whom she has accepted donations.


In this AP story, Bachmann, then a junior at Winona State University, was among a group of students pushing for legalization "taken by Gov. Rudy Perpich on a private tour of a home for alcoholics." The tour evidently did not sway her opinion. Her quote: "The University of Minnesota and six private colleges allow liquor on campus. And there have been no problems because of it."


RON PAUL
The Brazosport Facts (Texas)—
July 11, 1972

Dr. Paul once went to great lengths for a box of Samoas.

NEWT GINGRICH
Daily Boston Globe—September 1, 1954

Gingrich would eventually become a standard-bearer for conservative values, but in ’54 the little moocher didn’t mind asking for a handout from the mighty producer.

An 11-year-old is fighting City Hall here in an attempt to establish a zoo in the city's Wildwood Park.

Young Newton Gingrich told Mayor Claude Robins and four city Councilmen that he and an umber of youthful buddies could round up enough animals to get the project started if granted use of the park.

As Gingrich later told CNN, "Early on in life I thought I'd be a paleontologist or a zoo director." The interest abides: "Yes, I mean, I — when you say to me about really great moments of happiness, it is hanging out at zoos."


RICK PERRY
Olney Enterprise—
September 27, 1984

Perry has long had a reputation as an excellent retail politician. As a then-unelected Democrat, he learned to press the flesh.

Two years later—as The Houston Chronicle reported on Jan. 29, 1986— he inadvertently educated a classroom of high-school students.

A state technician says a nude scene attached to the end of a videotaped program on drug abuse was not the fault of the lawmaker who provided the tape to a surprised high school audience.

The scene depicting a nude couple in bed was inadvertently attached to a taped drug program sent by state Rep. Rick Perry, D-Haskell, to the 26 schools in his district.

The discovery prompted Perry to recall all the tapes.

The story as it appeared in The Galveston Daily News.

RICK SANTORUM
Associated Press
—November 27, 1981

Santorum has famously kept children safe from gays, biology and immigration reform. His opposition to caffeine pills may have been his first crusade. Working as an aide to then Sen. Doyle Colman, Santorum advocated for a bill making it illegal to sell caffeine pills “that resemble amphetamines if the intent is to deceive the buyer.”


JON HUNTSMAN
Deseret News—October 16, 1971


As a new member of the Nixon Administration, Jon Huntsman Sr. introduced the future governor and his brother to the felonious President he would be serving.

Elon Green writes supply-sider agitprop for ThinkProgress and Alternet.

---

See more posts by Elon Green

9 comments

---

See more posts by Dave Bry

1 comments

Romney: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

Gingrich: That's not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

Romney: Yeah. We got it from you and the Heritage Foundation and from you.

Gingrich: What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

That exchange, from the October 18th GOP presidential primary debate, likely caused a good number of clenched sphincters within the drop-ceilings of power at The Heritage Foundation. Until then, the think tank had only fought the socialist lefties at the Obama administration over Heritage's health-care-mandate dirty hands. But now, the calls were coming from inside the house. With tonight's CNN debate co-sponsored by The Heritage Foundation, another quibble like this between Newt and Mitt could bring further embarrassment to the mighty institution—and unravel millions of dollars in recent branding efforts.

Despite promoting the October 18th debate two times that day, Heritage's main Twitter feed ignored the reference to its involvement in crafting the individual health care mandate that was just as central to "Obamacare" as the opposition to it. But Rory Cooper, Heritage Foundation's Communications Director, leaped to action. Just minutes after the exchange, Cooper himself tweeted "Heritage Files Brief w/ Supreme Ct Opposing Individual Mandate," linking to a May 2011 announcement. The five month-old website posting announced the organization's amicus brief filed with the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. (After the debate, Cooper added, dryly, "A lot of great ideas discussed tonight that *were not* appropriately credited to Heritage!")

That May "friend-of-the-court brief" was meant to counter the Obama administration's own citation of the Heritage Foundation's support of the mandate. Heritage's brief in opposition to its own former opinions is a clinic in spin. It reads: "Heritage policy experts have been involved in the debate over mandates for many years, but its own research contributed to the growing consensus among market-based economists and health policy experts that such a mandate is not necessary...." In other words, Heritage's promotion of the mandate was just a trail-blazing effort to means-test it in order to discredit it. (Indeed, the 11th Circuit may have been think-tanked, voting a few months later that the mandate was unconstitutional.)

That Heritage defense went on to call Obamacare "an abomination," adding, "we changed our position on individual mandates long before President Obama ever spoke of one."

"Long before" depends upon what the length of the word "long" is.

In Heritage's case, this seems to be about two years. The Heritage Foundation's own website still carries a January 2006 defense of Romney's plan and the mandate by a Heritage Foundation Center for Health Policy Studies fellow. He begins, "In reality, those who want to create a consumer-based health system and deregulate health insurance should view Romney's plan as one of the most promising strategies out there. I know, because I've been part of the Heritage Foundation team advising the governor and his staff on the design…"

In another still-available post from 2006, a Heritage senior policy analyst argues, "While many oppose a mandate to buy insurance—even basic catastrophic insurance to protect the community from individuals not paying their bills—on philosophical grounds, they should still have a firm factual understanding of the Massachusetts mandate, which may be less problematic than they realize."

In yet another: "As for the employer fee mandate… [its] real-world impact will be negligible… Rather than focus on the bill's politically galvanizing 'mandates,' policymakers and pundits should step back and look at the big picture of this landmark reform."

The concept of a mandate that all Americans buy health insurances comes from an October 2, 1989 Heritage Foundation paper titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans" (PDF). In it, author Stuart M. Butler argues "neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement." He writes: "Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself...." (Mind you, according to today's 11th Circuit, Heritage's grand plan was likely unconstitutional.)

That plan was followed by the The Heritage Consumer Choice Health Plan (PDF) released in March of 1992. (To this day, Heritage still lists The Heritage Consumer Choice Health Plan on its 35th Anniversary History of Achievements list.)

Step two of this 1992 plan required "all households to purchase at least a basic package of insurance, unless they are covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or other government health programs.... The private insurance market would be reformed to make a standard basic package available to all at an acceptable price [and] employers would be required to make a payroll deduction each pay period, at the direction of the employee, and send the amount to the plan of the employee's choice."

Looking at the individual mandate portion of Obamacare, it's easy to see how its catalyst would be pro-privatization research. While the reforms are popularly derided today as socialist, even communist, the whole shebang is in fact a gravy train for private insurance. It pours cement into a national privatized healthcare foundation that a single-payer system could probably never chip away. No wonder that powerful politicians like Gingrich and Orrin Hatch—who today both say Obamacare must be scrapped—were in love with the mandate at the time.

Being a bunch of smart people, Heritage saw this all coming. And its initial strategy, as it is for every scandalized power, was deny, deny, deny.

In April 2010, the former Reagan administration official and current director of Heritage's Center for Health Policy Studies, Robert Moffit, took to the op-ed page of The Washington Post to declare that "Obama's health reform isn't modeled after Heritage Foundation ideas." He was "incensed" at the very suggestion. Moffit, reminding everyone that he would be there all week, wrote: "The Obama health-care law 'builds' on the Heritage health reform model only in the sense that, say, a double-quarter-pounder with cheese 'builds' on the idea of a garden salad. Both have lettuce and tomato and may be called food, but the similarities end there."

Jump ahead 10 months: senior Heritage fellow Brian Darling is on Fox News saying all this attention to the details of Romneycare was just a ploy by Obama to cause a distracting "food fight within the Republican primary."

Then this September, Heritage President of Communications Mike Gonzalez demanded, "[White House press secretary] Mr. Carney, Stop Misrepresenting Heritage’s Position." Gonzalez again called Obamacare "an abomination" and referenced Heritage's May amicus brief.

That 31-page brief reads "Although Heritage never supported a PPACA-style mandate, and has since changed its policy position to oppose all mandates, Heritage health care experts previously (albeit mistakenly) accepted the view that a limited insurance mandate might be necessary to address these market and government-created effects." So, maybe Moffit mistakenly meant to write that Obamacare "'builds' on the Heritage health reform model only in the sense that, say, a double-quarter-pounder with cheese 'builds' on the idea of a double-quarter-pounder."

It was all an embarrassing headache for Heritage, albeit one the tank thinkers saw coming. What they did not see coming was "Newt Gingirch, front-runner."

Now the PR nightmare has mutated. Striking down comments from Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney requires a lot more dexterity than dealing with the pinko libtards in the White House, nincompoops that Heritage's followers already assume lie to their own grandmothers. Romney, meanwhile, was (is?) a flip-flopping liberal political half-breed who had as much to lose from bringing up the Heritage Foundation's mandate involvement as Heritage did. But Newt? He may be a cheating scumbag RINO, but he is also a trusted historian of the conservative movement. Gingrich throwing Heritage under the bus is not only bad for the think tank's reputation, it speaks to a battle for branding of the source for modern conservative ideas.

The danger going forward for the Heritage Foundation is that a protracted battle between "surging" Newt and "inevitable" Mitt over Obamcare risks dragging the think tank into the mandate muck. Beyond the October debate comments, it's already happening. On a new Newt 2012 website called "Stopping the Bleeding" "Answering the Attacks," one item on the "menu" is "Health Insurance Mandate." The item explains, "In the 1990s, Newt and many other conservatives, such as the Heritage Foundation, proposed a mandate to purchase health insurance...."

More than embarrassing, such continued outings could undo the millions and millions of dollars Heritage has been spending over the last few years to brand itself with the American people. Earlier this year, Politico reported that The Heritage Foundation was paying "about $2 million to sponsor Limbaugh’s show and about $1.3 million to do the same with Hannity’s."

Anyone who listens to Limbaugh knows that these sponsorships are more like product placements than the conventional ad about, say, liquidating all your gold or protecting your last $14 with LifeLock. Limbaugh regularly cites Heritage studies, uses the organization to defend and legitimize his positions and slings its reports in discussion items. (Such as its groundbreaking exposé on how "92 percent of poor households have a microwave." The kind of report groomed for win-the-day media attention.)

And this tarnished reputation really can hurt Heritage's bottom line. While it's fashionable to think of a group like The Heritage Foundation as the repository of the money the one-percent earmarks for "evil schemes," in reality, Heritage relies greatly on small donations from everyday conservatives. Heritage told Politico that it estimates its Limbaugh and Hannity tie-ins gained it 40,000 new members, each paying at least $25. (That's $1 million by the way.) Heritage claims to have 710,000 members, up from the 684,000 it claimed in 2010.

Indeed, one thing Heritage bought from Limbaugh was damage control regarding its involvement in the creation of the individual mandate. Limbaugh railed, “The Heritage Foundation, to this day, says they are being impugned and misrepresented in terms of their advocacy for such a thing." (It's also likely the Heritage connection that saw Limbaugh vigorously defending fellow talk radio host Herman Cain after his Libya pooch-screw. Cain is a longtime Heritage speaker, claiming he gets his ideas from the Bible and "a lot of the papers that are published by The Heritage Foundation.")

Heritage Foundation may be a granddaddy of think tankery (since 1973), but it is facing new competition from Tea Party groups hungry for its members. Dick Armey's army at FreedomWorks has recently surged in importance. A direct political action committee, Freedomworks acts at a level of aggressive activism more in favor with today's further-right conservatives—they'd like to drop the "think" from "think tank." FreedomWorks just scored a huge victory as its Tea Party Debt Commission "hearing" inside the walls of Congress was martyred when it was booted from the building.

The dramatic shutdown was a dream outcome for FreedomWorks PR. Heritage's inside-the-beltway bow-tied pointyheads, by contrast, come across like wusses. (FreedomWorks is heavily mortgaged with its own spokestalker, Glenn Beck.) FreedomWorks President and CEO Matt Kibbe's profile has increased greatly recently, appearing on numerous news shows to vocalize the group's smaller-government, larger-sideburns message. As a Tea Party organization that spearheaded the 2009 anti-Obamacare "Occupy Town Halls" movement, FreedomWorks also has no pesky policy creation history to de-legitimize its current positions.

While it may seem like The Heritage Foundation's unwillingness to speak ill of Romney stems from an allegiance to Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment (Thou shalt not speak ill of other Republicans), it's actually due to the organization's 501(c)(3) status, disallowing direct support or opposition of a declared candidate. So instead, Heritage is left having to humor Mitt and Newt as leading candidates, like a guy marrying a fine upstanding Christian women who, at the reception, runs into an ex- with whom he used to do lines of coke and have filthy, filthy sex.

But as a registered PAC, FreedomWorks has no such limitations and can openly support and fund (or oppose) any candidate it wishes. This is a kind of direct action Heritage lacks. So into 2012, Heritage potentially faces a struggle for its reputation from within the very group that its power of ideas crafted for decades. Today's everyday conservatives, especially Tea Party-oriented ones, see the the end of the think tank's invisible hand of intellectual influence. Many no longer want an egghead to tell them what to say; now they want to be told what to do.

Abe Sauer can be reached at abesauer at gmail dot com. He is also on Twitter. His book How to be: NORTH DAKOTA. A Guide to the Plains is available now.

---

See more posts by Abe Sauer

21 comments

Friends, you shouldn’t be surprised by the Gingriches’ million-dollar credit line at Tiffany. After all, people spend a million dollars at Tiffany every day—regular people just like you! How do they do it? By following my Ten-Point Action Plan for Spending One Million Dollars at Tiffany. This exciting, foolproof system is designed to get results—and fast.

STEP 1. Burst through the doors of your local Tiffany with a song in your heart and a million dollars in your wallet. If you don’t have access to cash, inquire about opening an interest-free line of credit; odds are Tiffany will be happy to oblige.
BEGINNING BALANCE: $1,000,000

STEP 2. Start buying necklaces! When it comes to jewelry, necklaces are the perfect “gateway drug.” I’ve bought many beautiful necklaces for $5,000. You’ve got $1,000,000 in credit; why not buy 30? After all, the only image more alluring than a woman gliding into a room wearing a fine necklace is a woman staggering under the weight of 30 of them, looking like a wayward galaxy smashed into her collarbone.

Ladies, try mixing and matching: drape a diamond necklace over a gold necklace. Then add a ruby necklace. Then add twenty-seven more necklaces. This funky bohemian look will charm the crowd at your next poetry slam.
30 necklaces at $5,000/necklace = $150,000
BALANCE REMAINING: $850,000

STEP 3. While the sales associates are polishing your necklaces, move on to earrings. Earrings are surprisingly useful; I can’t count how many times I’ve silenced a naggy-ass lover by flinging fistfuls of brand-new, sparkling earrings at her. Because earlobes are an inappropriate forum for advertising one’s poverty, my rule of thumb is “Never spend less than $2,500 on a pair of earrings.” $100,000 should get you 40 decent pairs. Coupon-clippers, remember: 40 pairs of earrings is actually 80 separate earrings; there’s no limit to the mixing and matching you’ll be able to do (especially if you pierce your nose).
40 pairs of earrings at $2,500/pair = $100,000
BALANCE REMAINING: $750,000

STEP 4. The bad news: You’ve already spent a fourth of your credit. The good news: You still have three-quarters of a million dollars, which is nothing to shake a stick at. It’s time to start buying engagement rings. According to my pastor, a gentleman should spend $50,000 on his fiancee’s ring; anything less says, “I think you’re human garbage.”

Already married? There’s nothing wrong with a contingency plan (i.e., a box of rings buried in the backyard). Assume you’ll be married four times, just to be safe.
4 engagement rings at $50,000/ring = $200,000
BALANCE REMAINING: $550,000

STEP 5. After all that shopping, you’ll probably be hungry. Pay a Tiffany employee $25,000 to buy you a burrito.
1 burrito at $25,000/burrito = $25,000
BALANCE REMAINING: $525,000

STEP 6. All of a sudden, $525,000 doesn’t seem like much money. It’s not even $600,000! If the past few years have taught Americans anything, it’s that financial stress can be overwhelming: “Are we living within our budget?” “Do we have enough money to make ends meet at Tiffany?” Relax by treating yourself to a really nice brooch, like a diamond-encrusted pin of a gazelle, emu, yak, ibex or hartebeest. Animal-shaped pins are a great way to remind your peers that you are an interesting, creative person who likes the idea of nature. (NOTE: Remember to ask the Tiffany employee to write down the name of the animal, so you’ll have an answer when someone asks, “What’s that blob on your lapel?”)
1 animal pin at $125,000/animal pin = $125,00
BALANCE REMAINING: $400,000

STEP 7. You’ve got 30 necklaces, 80 earrings, four engagement rings, a burrito and a brooch. Maybe it’s time to buy something other than jewelry? Fortunately, Tiffany showrooms are filled with conversation pieces. Buy them. Do you like the jeweler’s bowtie? Buy it. Would the flowers on the counter look nice in your kitchen? Buy them. The wainscoting behind the counter might work in your den—buy it. Intriguing magazines in the employee break room? Buy them. Soon you’ll be able to recreate the “Tiffany experience” in the privacy of your own homes.
Miscellaneous items = $160,000
BALANCE REMAINING: $ 240,000

STEP 8. Buy a car.
1 car at $85,000/car = $85,000
BALANCE REMAINING: $155,000

STEP 9. I can’t believe I almost forgot wristwatches! Wristwatches (some call them “chronometers”) are unique among jewelry in that they use science to tell time. Support the spirit of scientific inquiry by buying ten wristwatches: one for telling time in the morning, one for telling time in the evening and eight for telling time in the bathtub.
10 wristwatches at $15,498/wristwatch = $154,980
BALANCE REMAINING: $20

STEP 10. Congratulations on the successful execution of my foolproof system! Who’s a big boy? You are! You still have 20 dollars left, which is a testament to your frugality and fundamental decency. Why not dabble in philanthropy? Give it to a homeless person loitering outside the showroom; it’ll make his day.
1 philanthropic gesture at $20/gesture = $20. (NOTE: Make sure he promises not to waste it on drugs.)

David Rees is a former political cartoonist. Now he is an artisanal pencil sharpener.

---

See more posts by David Rees

36 comments

---

See more posts by Alex Balk

7 comments

---

See more posts by Alex Balk

1 comments

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

15 comments