As of 1:20 AM, Newt Gingrich had not congratulated Mitt Romney on his Florida Primary win (clobbering Newt), nor did he offer the traditional congratulations to the winner in his concession speech.
I’ll grant Newt this: it isn’t as if he’s pretending to be what he’s not…gracious, fair, respectful, polite, humble, classy. I guess that represents a certain kind of integrity…the integrity to be a jerk, and to be open and unapologetic about it.
Ethics Alarms 
I think the relief i feel at his rapidly sinking candidacy is the same I felt when Hilary Clinton’s campaign sunk in 2008… a feeling that the worst scenario won’t come to pass.
I felt the same way about Hillary then…I don’t now. I think we got the worst case scenario. There is no question in my mind that Hillary would be a stronger, more effective leader. I would still never vote for her, because she is thoroughly unethical, purely Machiavellian to the core, and I don’t trust her. But she would, on balance, be an upgrade from Obama. I’d vote for Hillary over Newt, in a heartbeat.
Many of the most effective leaders in history have been described as Machiavellian. Ditto for the worst tyrants. I’d choose Hillary over Newt or Barack in a heartbeat, also (though I wonder why you chose to use first names for Hillary and Newt and “Obama” for Barack, Jack) because I agree she would be a far more effective leader.
Many of the most effective leaders in history, and virtually all the worst tyrants have also been described as having sociopathic traits. SOMETIMES these traits (when used for good vs. evil) can make effective leaders … when they don’t spiral out of control and become destructive.
It seems rather obvious, even to many of us who do not hold degrees in psychology/psychiatry that Newt displays an abundance of personality disorder/sociopathic traits. I find that frightening. I find it even more frightening that a certain (all-too-large) sector of the public doesn’t give a damn.
All true.
I use Hillary…and I think this should be obvious…to distinguish her from another Clinton, who also is a likely sociopath, since you mention it, Giving both her names every time is a pain. Plus the fact that when she ran for Senator AND President, she designated herself as “Hillary.” I also tend to call Gingrich “Newt.” As a hunt-and-peck typist, I will generally gravitate to the monicker with the fewest letters, and that’s a fact. Calling the President by his first name is generally disrespectful unless he encourages it (Teddy didn’t mind being called Teddy, but Dick was almost always used to disparage Nixon). I try not to do it with Obama.
It is true, and I have written this elsewhere on the site, that some sociopaths have been good leaders. They are still dangerous, and should be avoided whenever possible.
I hate that this much seems true: Newt has a whole heapin’ lot of people fooled all of the time. On the other hand, is it also possibly true that we (meaning we the U.S. electorate as a whole, ethically) are “not in Kansas anymore” (to borrow a concept from a famous movie) – so much so, that the only kind of head of state we can reasonably expect to elect is a “wizard” who sustains illusions from behind some kind of curtain?
Surprising? Nothing out of Gingrich’s camp could be.
Classless? Absolutely.
That a presidential candidate is unable to publicly, or in private, exhibit the skill of diplomacy–disheartening.
Encouraging people to make statements like congratulations and apologies that they do not mean is basically encouraging them to lie. It is also disrespectful to the person being apologized to or congratulated.
I am sure the very last think that Mitt wanted to hear on his victory night was anything that Newt had to say. Newt was giving Mitt much more respect by keeping his mouth shut and thus keeping the cameras away from him on Mitts victory night.
This is like when Obama killed Bin Laden and President Bush refused to congratulate him for it until he was prompted to do it, and instead made a bunch of snippy snide remarks. Ethically, if you cannot make an honest statement of respect, remain silent.
You are wrong. Apologies should be sincere, but they are also acknowledgments that they have done harm, and that they are contrite, and that they have basic ethical values because they know right from wrong. It also means they care and respect others, which are core ethical values. A bad person who refuses to apologize for a wrongful act may have integrity, but that’s it: he also displays his antisocial values by being unwilling to humble himself to express respect and caring for someone who has been treated unfairly, cruelly or unjustly. Apologies are just debt payments—they bandage and allow healing for societal wounds that without their balm, begin to unravel the basis for mutual respect and cooperation. Even if it is not sincere, an apology passes the utilitarian test by making a bad situation better.
You are even more wrong regarding congratulations to the victor after a defeat. It is a ritual and is recognized as such; it means–“This isn’t personal; I am professional; I respect the will of the people; I will be civilized.”
Both are core Golden Rules actions that benefit society. A refusal to congratulate the winner can only mean 1) You didn’t really win; 2) I don’t care about keeping this professional 3)I hate you or 4) I am an utter asshole. If you want to add, “I am honest about my pettiness,” go ahead. Newt nailed 2-4. What a guy.