As Newt Gingrich has catapulted ahead of the rest of the GOP field, he’s now experiencing the early phase of what will be a relentless, weeks-long assault by the other candidates, former House colleagues, and what some conservatives scornfully call “the establishment.”
It’s reasonable to assume that the sheer number and velocity of the charges will take their toll on Gingrich. But part of me wonders.
To explain why, it might be worth recalling an episode from the original “Star Trek” series, “The Immunity Syndrome,” in which the Enterprise encounters an enormous, single-cell amoeba. The crew eventually realizes that the amoeba is surrounded by a zone of darkness that is a negative energy force in which everything works in reverse. Using phasers wouldn’t hurt the creature; it would actually strengthen it. “That thing would probably like phasers,” Captain Kirk speculates. “It eats power.” (The creature is eventually destroyed by using an anti-matter charge.)
In some respects, that seems to be happening right now with the former Speaker. Much of the conservative intelligentsia is unloading on Gingrich. In my judgment, many of their concerns are warranted. On several occasions I’ve expressed my own deep worries and disagreements with Gingrich, even as I readily admit that he possesses some impressive political skills and has some impressive accomplishments on his resume. But it appears as if these criticisms are, at least for some GOP voters, taken as evidence that Gingrich is the right man for this moment. One senses that for some significant number of conservatives, Gingrich’s past mistakes are history, forgiven if not forgotten. He is, the argument goes, a new Newt – a convert to Catholicism, happily married, well-grounded, at peace with himself and the world around him.
I’m skeptical. Gingrich continues to be, at least in some important respects, chronically undisciplined and erratic. I rather doubt he has been able to overcome the patterns of a lifetime. But many Republican voters may believe the worst of Gingrich is gone and the best of Gingrich remains. The attacks on Gingrich may only serve to make him stronger, as if the criticisms of him testify to his virtues. He becomes more–not less–attractive.
I don’t pretend to understand why this is the case. It seems to me if many of those who served by your side, or under your leadership, are frightened by the prospect of your nomination, that is worth taking into account. Yet an awful lot of grass-roots voters may interpret things a lot differently than I do.
It’s early yet – but right now, at this juncture, the bullets seem to be bouncing off Gingrich’s chest. If this continues, Mitt Romney better hope he can find a canister of anti-matter.
Of course this is happening. MOST of the negatives you and the other "establishment" conservatives are harping on are personal. The positives, that most agree on, are substantive. The electorate is basically saying "we want someone substantive regardless of personal issues." In other words, the anti-Obama to Obama's highly liked personal positives and highly disliked substantive negatives.
If Newt had undergone this maturing transformation to contented grandpa who has come to grips with his demons with the help of the church, loves his new wife and is at peace with himself, blah, blah, how come he blew up his own campaign just a few months ago by behaving in his notorious erratic, egomaniacal way? n nMust have been an awfully fast transformation.
"at least in some important respects, chronically undisciplined and erratic." n nPerhaps many of these people are like me. We watched the media and Dems rip Gingrich apart like he was the anti-Christ in the mid-1990s seemingly because he dared to take away the House from liberalism. They were vicious, relentless, and vile, but they never seemed to have the goods. The media's partisan demonization of him was part of their fall among the masses. n nWe watched them do the same to Palin. We watched them do it to Bush. To Rumsfeld. To Cheney. To Rove. You name it. Name any successful conservative they were afraid of… n nThey are all "scary". They are either too stupid and dangerous – or worse yet – evil-smart and dangerous. It is clear why liberalism must destory these men: Their ability and ideas threaten their ability to push through liberal policies. n n What about with the others? It is much like Rumsfeld going into the Pentagon. A library of books have been written about how that organization being a typical, bloated bureaucracy – despite how many supposedly typical conservative patriotic people staff it. It is an example of what many in the masses call the establishment. — And when a smart, articulate, capable person comes in vowing to dramatically reform such a bureaucracy – what do you think happens? n nOr take a DC bureaucracy outsider like Palin. The left feared she'd gain too much of the female vote and they could not allow that when the first black presidency was at stake. But what about the non-liberal establishment? Why didn't they embrace Palin? Too stupid? Too "chronically undisciplined and erratic"? n nSee. The problem for both the liberals and those others who fear someone gaining the backing of the conservative movement is —- we've heard all this too many times before. n nWe heard the same thing about the people mentioned above. We heard it for almost a decade with Reagan. We heard it with Nixon. We heard it with Eisenhower. They are all either too stupid or too evil or both to be trusted not to ruin things beyond repair. n nHow are we too trust you? I'm sure they haven't always been crying wolf. (Nixon comes to mind.) But, do the conservative masses really only back ignorant evil people destined to destroy the nation? That is why they are being drawn to Gingrich? n nMaybe they are taking another look at him because they are watching the same establishment types starting to do to him what they have done to each and every one of the individuals who gained favor with the conservative core of the Republican party and voting masses. n nIn short, perhaps the amount of positive interest in Gingrich generated as the attacks heat up is in direct proportion to the amount of trust the vocal establishment (left and right) has lost among the people.
The cynicism towards the media and the pundit class is palpable.
In my view, America, like the Titanic, needs to change course away from the direction it is headed, toward European Command and Control Socialistic Welfare and Corporatist Statism, and toward government CENTERED on the Constitution, Economic Freedom, Rule of Law, Separation and Balance of Powers, Free Market, and Personal Responsibility based on Judeo-Christian tradition, that is, Individual Liberty and and individual God Given right to choose our own path to happiness.
Oh, I wouldn't think that is the case. There could be a group that feels this way about the establishment, but by and large from what I've seen on the net, well thought out arguments do well. And with the knives out for Newt, with some respected writers and commentators in the mix, that could and probably will have an effect on his poll numbers. It is far above my pay scale to jump into this fight, but from what I believe I've seen the issue seems to be that peoples concern(s) about Mitt Romney have not been addressed. As I was just reading in a previous Commentary article, the common saying being "anyone but Mitt" due to his past policies and main stream political support. I don't believe that to be the case. n nWill be interesting to see what happens over the next month!
It's really easy to understand, Peter – the attacks have been: n na) condescending toward the voters (such as myself) who are for Newt – and, I would add, "condescending" is putting it mildly ("How can a rational person vote for a crazy person?" is usually the implication, with the explanation being that we're throwing a fit); n nSo, e.g., say that some people have a rational objection to another's assumptions. Next, say that other calls them names and acts like the objectors are just whiny children. How on earth would you expect them to respond? n nProblem: both sides are not treating each other as rational. n nThus, if a crazy bully tells me to "vote Romney" I'm not going to listen, and will consider myself rational for not listening; and if a crazy yokel says to you "vote Gingrich" you're not going to listen, and will think yourself rational in doing so. n nSee how that works? Both sides at this point think "reason" = ignoring the crazy, ill-intentioned people opposed to me. Ears are closed all around. n nWhat I'm saying, Peter, is that your treating this as a one-sided deal and not a dialectical deal is symptomatic of the larger problem, and it encapsulates perfectly why you "can't understand" what you're trying to understand. n nAnyway, I have my theory, which is that neither side is to blame in the end for the vicious dialectic of Romney – Not Romney. I think the conservatives who were possibly right for the moment and had the potential to unite enough of the party to stop this nonsense, and who chose to sit on their hands, bear most of the blame. After all, this more focused angst and anger – on behalf of Romney or Gincrich – began as a general angst and anger at the extreme poverty of our contenders at this very rich moment in history. The nasty dialectic is just the evolution of that angst. And it ain't going away. n n(cont'd…)
(cont'd…) nb) the attacks are seen as part of an agenda to get Romney into the general – that is, the attacks are perceived at this point as a steady automatic rapid fire emitting from the Romney camp, and no matter who crosses too close to him, he (or she) will be cut down. It's indiscriminate and blind. n nThus, Peter, what you claim you don't understand at the end is a result of the rhetorical trick the Romney people always play: "How can you be for Newt when, compared with a normal standard, he's awful?" n nRight there – that's the problem. n nNewt voters are for Newt because the normal standards, in their (our) minds, have already gone bye-bye – we are in a race with Romney as the front-runner. Things become conceivable then that are not so in any normal circumstances. n nPairing Newt against a normal standard is easy to call – the normal standard wins by KO early. But pairing him against Romney, explicitly and in detail, is much more of a close-run thing, and the feeling is that the pundits know this. So, when they use the rhetorical trick (and other bullying tactics) it has a whiff of deliberate misdirection about it, and this then compounds with the already existing sense that this is what Obama and his minions do, and, hence, Romney and his minions wind up getting associated with Obama. n nOn the flip-side, the "rational" conservative pundit-class likes to think they are separated from the yokels by being thoughtful, evidence-and-reality based, and basically a bit moderate – they don't yell, they talk; they don't look for saviors, they take it "on the issues" and the "facts," and so forth. So whenever their judgment is questioned, they double-down on that. In this case, their judgment has to do with "beating Obama." Questioning their judgment on behalf of a madman is seen, thus, as some kind of suicidal attempt to make a point. At any rate, the yokels are dangerous because, whether they know it or not, they are, in their mistaken purism and fundamentalism, fighting for Obama. n nNote again how we are actually united in our angst about Obama. It is the intensity of that angst, and the intensity of the anger and disappointment at not getting even a decent slate of candidates, that has shot-through our recriminations and turned them so bitter. n nIn any case, the twain cannot meet. I've looked at Romney's record very closely, and I've seen him in action, and I think he is a very weak candidate; so weak that Gingrich – a very weak candidate himself – seems preferable to me. You all are in the process of assuring us that you've done the same probing – and have better memories than us or something – and have concluded that Romney is preferable. It is what it is. But continuing to dig in on the crazy theme attacking Gingrich leaves a lot of you guys with very little space to wiggle into supporting him if he wins the primaries. I honestly wonder if Commentary is going to sit out the election if Gingrich is the nominee. I don't think you and your writers quite understand that that's the impression you've given to a lot more people than just me. n nSo you think we're blind and we think you're blind. You ask, "How is it that all of the valid attacks on Newt make his support stronger?," but revealingly you do not ask (and no one here asks), "How is it that all of the valid attacks on Romney only make our support stronger?" In other words, the very same pattern of the boomerang effect is at work among the aristoi. You guys just don't see it, because it's part and parcel with the condescension – only the hoi polloi are subject to such cognitive short-comings. n nThanks for trying, anyway, Peter. It's more than most Romney supporters in the punditocracy have done. n nAnd, p.s. – I still think you should collect your posts on Obama and re-shape them into a book – no one has written as incisively as you on the man and his psychology.