For the past few months we’ve been hearing a lot in the mainstream media about the demise of the Tea Party and conservative Republicans in general. After their triumph in 2010 the Tea Party’s influence was supposed to have peaked last summer during the debt ceiling crisis. The failure of presidential candidates who openly identified with the movement such as Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain and Rick Perry was seen as evidence of their not being able to even influence the GOP. But yesterday’s big victory in the South Carolina primary by Newt Gingrich is a clear indication that conservatives are still calling the tune in the Republican Party and anyone who thinks their concerns can be ignored or swept to the side is mistaken.
Gingrich won because, unlike Mitt Romney, he was able to tap into the genuine anger that conservatives in this country feel for President Obama and his cheerleaders in the liberal media echo chamber. While Gingrich’s claim to be the true conservative in the race is highly questionable, there is no question that he was the best at articulating the same fervor that helped galvanize Tea Party sentiment and sweep the last midterm elections. If Romney hopes to keep Gingrich’s latest comeback from gaining enough momentum to deny him the GOP nomination, he is going to have to find a way to convince conservatives that he is not merely a technocrat who understands the economy but a man who understands and can articulate their core beliefs. In other words, not only is the Tea Party’s moment not in the past, it is still very much the future of the Republican Party.
Needless to say, liberals are not taking this development with a good grace.
The New York Times editorial column this morning attempted to rationalize Gingrich’s win by attributing it to conservative racism. This is a liberal canard that has been repeated endlessly in the last two years without any proof to back it up. But the anger that the Times and other liberals mistake for racism is genuine. It is not, however, fueled by racism or a wish to deny minorities opportunities but a function of the frustration that many Americans feel about Obama’s reckless spending and taxing that is leading the country over the economic cliff.
Romney has a case to make to conservatives about his ideas being a better fit on the economy than those of Gingrich. But his cool demeanor and inability to create some chemistry with the electorate is a genuine obstacle to his presidential hopes. By contrast, Gingrich described himself as not a great debater but someone who can “articulate the deepest values of the American people.” It’s easy to scoff at the typical false modesty in this boast but there is something to what he’s driving at. It must be acknowledged that what happened in the last week is in large measure the product of his ability to channel conservative and Tea Party sentiment about liberal politicians and journalists.
The vast compendium of “grandiose” schemes and slogans that emanate from the former speaker are all over the ideological map. His personal flaws and abysmal leadership style make it difficult to imagine him winning the presidency. But unless Romney can figure a way to speak to the hearts as well as the minds of conservatives, he may deliver the GOP nomination to Gingrich.
In the nine days until the Florida primary and most especially the two debates in the state this week, Romney must start speaking directly to conservatives. Last night in his South Carolina concession speech, he gave us a hint of the sort of language that he might use to do that when he spoke of a campaign to defend free enterprise against the party of big government and those Republicans like Gingrich who have employed the arguments of the left to try to tear him down. We’ll need to hear a lot more of that and to hear it spoken with the sort of passion that Gingrich can so easily summon if Romney is ultimately to prevail.
The NYTimes own ombudsman described it as an outfit aimed at New York liberals and people who self-identify with that narrow-cast spectrum. A raspberry from the Times is like a put-down from the Monster Wheels Tractor Pull channel–well, except for a smaller mind share. n nNo, Newt is a classic "happy warrior." He claims minimum prep time before debates–he just goes out there and riffs. He's an ebullient shpritzer. On any alternate Tuesday his big ideas are whoa-impressive or WTF head scratching but he's obviously enjoying himself and is happy in his own skin, his performance, the pageantry of Newt. n nRomney is way over-scripted and has tried to skate on the gosh darn meta- wonderfulness of the organization and the script. But so far he hasn't found a way to connect. Communication 101 pounds in the idea that a communicator has to be aware of their audience and find some view or truth that they can deliver or no communication, no persuasion takes place. n n
I agree with this. Be afraid. Very afraid.
Inside baseball process meta-selling points are weak reeds (tho helped Obama who had no executive experience to speak of outside his campaign) but meta-narratives are telling. n nThose who use "Zionist" as a curse-word, for example, have embraced a meta-narrative. This narrative condemns Israel (where half of Jews actually live) as a criminal conspiracy of lying, rootless colonizers without legitimate history or motives, trashes the objective connection between biblical faith and the renaissance of a Jewish commonwealth, demonizes the supporters of the Jewish state, and excuses free-will and uncompelled preparations for holy war targeting Israel while embracing the mythos that "Zionists which to send American sons to kill and die for Israel" (the EU supports Iranian sanctions without presumably harboring these evil designs). n nThe meta-narrative is not about detailed critiques of Israel or even Zionism (these guys couldn't tell Herzelian Liberals from the neo-Herzelian Herut from Mapai and would be hard put to distinguish between the military zones of control established within Israel after 1948 and the Law of Trusteeship for Absentee Property imposed throughout the West Bank after 1967). It is a stigmatizing cudgel intended to incite and intimidate. n nRomney's narrative, such as it is, about a businessman bringing entrepreneurship to Washington not only doesn't connect at all points with the specific sector of capital in which he made his bones but doesn't seem to resonate with his own personality whose tentative control-freak (to what ends?) self-abnegation becomes its own narrative. n nNewt's grand narrative of "American exceptionalism" not only has been assiduously cultivated in the cultural product of his own entrepreneurship but amplifies the positive strengths of his core personality. Liberal critiques of his inconsistency founder on their own assumed elitism and lack of connection fo the vision of America Newt is selling. Within his narrative Newt can run left or right on individual issues. de novo. This won't necessarily harm his sale. n nWhat could are additional tactical contradictions, week by week, or day by day reversals nin the face of an unexpected kerfluffle. That said, Newt claims to have a sub-strata of "new sythesis" management and organizational solutions to debt, medical care etc. challenges to break out of the current right-left paradigmatic stand-offs. Only time will tell. But the guy certainly radiates a connection to an inner motivational force while Romney draws blanks. n nBut then again, love him or detest him, Obama is no empty suit either, but filled with the right stuff? n n"Despite what his rivals say, the president and the first lady do believe in American exceptionalism — their own, and they feel overassaulted and underappreciated. n nWe disappointed them"–Maureen Dowd.
can we stop bashing Newt. You can think a smart old white man who cheated on his wife can't win but the reality was he has always been a strong conservative with too much fire in his belly but somehow was the best speaker in the last 20 years cause he was about positive change and not getting along.
The salient point here is that the GOP has long had an internal conflict between wealthier, moderate members and the less-well-off conservatives (albeit with exceptions on both sides). This is the so-called "establishment" versus the conservative "core." n nThe Establishment never liked Ronald Reagan but came to tolerate him because of his electoral success and angled to carve out their territory from him. But the Establishment GOP has no, real place for conservatism; they are far more comfortable with the staus quo and would much prefer to find ways to get along with Leftist policies from Democrats than upset the cart and jeopardize their hard-won positions of power and wealth. n nFor decades, the conservative Core has been in uneasy alliance with the Establishment, unsure of their strength and splintered between social issues, libertarian issues and domestic policies. In the end, with Bush 41, Bush 43, Dole and McCain, the Core eventually gave in and threw half-hearted support in the face of objectionable Democrat candidates. n nThe situation seems to have changed dramatically with Obama's election and subsequent actions. The Core has been unified around a few issues: government spending, illegal immigration and unconstitutional federal government.. The divisive issues such as social issues have been temporarily put on the back burner as the Core senses an existential threat from Obama not felt before. In this sense, particularly with the advent of the Tea Party movement and the stunning results of 2010, the Core has started to feel its own strength. As a result, this Core no longer seems willing to go along with the Establishment and is forcing a real schism between the two components of the GOP. n nThis, then, is the emerging story of Gingrich's rise in SC and, seemingly, Florida. The Core simply does not trust Romney and feels that he is another McCain or Dole or even Bush. They are so hungry for a candidate that will aggressively speak for conservative ideas that they are willing to overlook all sorts of defects in Newt's career, personal life and political positions. This is much more a rebellion by the Core against the Establishment (and what appears to be the Establishment candidate, Romney) than an actual endorsement of Gingrich the man. As long as Gingrich keeps boldly speaking the words of the Core and avoids dissonant words or actions, he may very well carry the nomination notwithstanding personal negatives, past sins, past inconsistencies. Gingrich merely has to allow himself to be molded into the candidate that the Core wants and he wins it. Romney simply seems incapable of doing this. And the more the Establishment blogs and pundits ridicule Gingrich or try to shame the Core into backing Romney, the more they will reinforce Gingrich as the Core candidate.