Practically every conversation about politics I had during the weekend with friends and associates began with them asking the same question: Isn’t Newt Gingrich the consummate insider, and therefore the antithesis of what Republican primary voters say they want this year? Well, yes and no.
The term “outsider,” which has become both a mantra and a badge of honor for GOP candidates this cycle, certainly evokes geography–distance from Washington, D.C. But it’s not solely a geographical term. Certainly Gingrich has, over the years, become quite comfortable in the district. But Gingrich’s goal was always as counterrevolutionary, not revolutionary–a distinction he felt was important to understand his role in Washington. From Steven M. Gillon’s book on the Gingrich-Bill Clinton rivalry of the ’90s:
Until the mid-1960s, Gingrich told reporters, “there was an explicit, long-term commitment to creating character. It was the work ethic, it was honesty, right and wrong, it was not harming others, it was being vigilant in the defense of liberty. It was very clear and we taught it.” All that changed beginning in 1965. “The 1960s produced a cultural civil war,” he argued, because it gave birth to a left-liberal elite, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, that espoused “a set of values” that attacked all forms of authority. The results have been obvious and pernicious….
His closest allies shared this agenda. Gingrich ally Robert Walker often served as a pro-Vietnam spokesman on campus rallies and Millersville State College. A student at the University of Houston, Tom DeLay attended antiwar rallies to shout down the protestors. Robert Livingston, whom Gingrich appointed to head the powerful Appropriations Committee, served two years in the Navy and described himself as a “counter-revolutionary.” Majority Leader Dick Armey, who earned a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Oklahoma, summed up the sentiment of the new Republican leadership: “To me,” he said, “all the problems began in the 60s.”
This does not and should not immunize Gingrich from accusations that he has become a creature of Washington. But I think it’s an important corollary to the discussion over why Gingrich, a moderate with shifting political sensibilities, has surged so far ahead in the polls of Mitt Romney, a moderate with shifting political sensibilities. I mentioned last week that Romney lacks a record of fighting side by side with conservatives throughout his career. Gingrich obviously lacks no such experience. Here, for example, is the cover of the first-ever issue of The Weekly Standard:
People remember the battles won and the battles lost. But conservatives remember the cultural threat they saw in the Clinton administration, and a Republican victory so momentous it caused Clinton to carp “the president is relevant here” at a press conference months later. The most charming man in politics, who happened to be the leader of the free world, was all but sidelined by Newt Gingrich.
On the night of the victory, Gingrich called the Clintons “McGovernicks” and “left-wing elitists.” Then he took aim at the welfare state policies these “McGovernicks” were protecting: “They ruined the poor. They created a culture of poverty and a culture of violence which is destructive of this civilization, and they have to be replaced thoroughly, from the ground up.”
Welfare reform was proof he meant it. Gingrich has, surely, become a Washington insider. But Gingrich was, once upon a time, inside Washington the way a bull is inside a china shop. As conservatives prepare to try and turn back the latest expansion of the welfare state, it shouldn’t be too surprising just how many people have found themselves in Newt’s corner one more time.
(1) n nLet's look at it objectively. n nNewt sometimes gets full of himself. Newt has made some mis-steps, that greatly concern the conservative base. Such as supporting the wrong candidate in New York District 23 in 2010 (Scozzafava) and his global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi. Some of his other supposed political mis-steps (Ryan criticism, Fannie Mae lobbying) have arguably been twisted by the same media that portrayed him as "The Newt that Stole Christmas" during the 1990s, and blasted him in article after article for his alleged "ethics" violations, but were very quiet about his exoneration of those charges. n nThis is to say we should be very suspicious of the media's reporting fairly about all things Newt, just as we should be very suspicious about their proclivities to report fairly about anything conservative (see the Tea Pary coverage, the destruction of Herman Cain on scant proof of infidelity, etc. etc. etc.).
I've been surprised how hard conservative columnists have started attacking Gingrich when to me he is very similar to them – at least the intelligent ones. I think if the pundits actually had gotten elected, needed to get re-elected, and had a job where they actually had work to make the nation run, their careers might not look too differently than Gingrich's.
(2) nOn the other hand, as the article attests, Newt has always been a leader in the counter-culture battles, and is unsurpassed in elucidating conservative ideals in a manner that rallies the majority of the conservative voting public, which as poll after poll suggests, is THE majority of the voting public, to conservative ideals and goals. n nThis election will require a candidate that can clearly elucidate our conservative ideals, buttress his positions with historical facts supporting those ideals, who isn't afraid to take on the liberal MSM, call them on their biases and straw-man arguments, soundly defeat Obama in a one-on-one debate, and knows how to get his agenda enacted once he gets elected. n nI see no one in the republican field that surpasses Gingrich in those areas.
(3) nAs for his marital difficulties, he has openly asked for forgiveness from God, and as a repentant sinner myself, I am sure our merciful God will make the correct judgment as to Newt's final disposition. n nIt should be enough for the American conservative voter that Newt has admitted these mistakes, appears to be repentant, and has publically acknowledged asking for forgiveness from God. n nThe future of our country is at stake in this election, and Newt has the skill set to put us back on the road to constitutionally limited government. Everything in his past record indicates that is the direction in which he would indeed lead us. n nIt will be up to the voters, as always, to keep his feet to the fire and make sure he delivers on that promise.
On forgiveness from God–reliance upon "Lord make me chaste but not yet" can't obviate the reality that his values, his social values, the ones he espoused publicly, did not guide his private behavior. In terms of personal conduct he isn't all that much a "counter-revolutionary." Dick Armery is convinced that, indeed, he and Clinton precisely held secret meetings to discuss their respective off-the-books girlfriends. He isn't at heart a social conservative whatever hairshirt advocacy of Puritanism he preaches for the other guy over there, and will disappoint social conservatives who expect him to support their agenda. n nA Puritan work ethic. Absolutely. He's a hard (if unfocused conceptually) worker and an entrepreneur. n nA bluenose. n nNo.
In the days of Goldwater and Nixon, the Republicans were a conservative party. Gingrich turned the Republicans into an opposition party, committed to fighting the Democratic Party even if it meant fighting against the interests of the United States at the same time. The impeachment of Clinton endangered America's foreign policy. Today Gingrich is not in Congress; nevertheless, the Republican war against the Democrats has meant our deficit problem cannot be solved. nThe Republicans must relearn how to combine conservatism with loyalty.
Gee, you mean there's no Democratic war against the Republicans…?
You are making my point about why Gingrich is sorely needed. The consistent failings of the repubs over the years has been a lack of "fire in the belly" to combat the hyprocrisy, the lies, and the exaggertions of our conservative values/positions/solutions in the face of the liberal and MSM (but I repeat myself) onslaught against those values/positions/solutions. n nWe desperately NEED an erudite spokesman who can clearly refute the slanders, and do so with historical perspective and examples. Don't hold your breath waiting for the dems/media to play nice.
Clinton had a foreign policy? n nWho knew? n n nYeah yeah yeah, peace process!
I was surprised to see George Will and Charles Krauthammer coming out so hard against Gingrich. The level of attacks. Then, it started to dawn on me that some of what they were attacking was ironic given who they are. Maybe I focus too much attention on when Gingrich was in office. Maybe others focus too much on what he's said and done out of office. But, to hear Will and Krauthammer ridicule Gingrich for being a Washington insider and intellectual egoist can come out funny on reflection. n nThe difference between Gingrich and those two is – Gingrich was actually responsible for having to get things done. He couldn't just play-pontificate from the hallways of the mainstreammedia. Gingrich had to fight Republican battles in Congress against the Dems. And yes, part of that meant compromising. It might sound strange — and it sure does — but I guess it is easier to remain ideologically and ethically pure exercising your intellectual chops from inside the Washington Post than it does when you have to get dirty actually doing the job of government (instead of just talking about how it should be done while earning a living within the belly of the media beast)… n n