Since the beginning of his political career, President Obama has had a particularly annoying habit of comparing himself to great historical leaders, including Ronald Reagan, Lincoln and JFK. Many politicians do this to a certain extent, but coupled with Obama’s thin resume and lack of substance, it played into the narrative that he had an inflated self-image.
Obama’s historical self-comparisons have become a running joke with conservatives. But why are Newt Gingrich’s even more outlandish personal assessments – that he’s just like Thomas Edison, the Duke of Wellington, or Henry Clay – not treated as equally ridiculous?
If anything, Gingrich’s comparisons are much more overt than Obama’s. “Because I am much like Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, I’m such an unconventional political figure that you really need to design a unique campaign that fits the way I operate and what I’m trying to do,” Gingrich told CNN.com last November.
In the same week, Gingrich made a similarly grandiose comment in a Washington Post article. “I am the most seriously professorial politician since Woodrow Wilson,” he said.
And while Gingrich certainly had some great achievements during his time in Congress, even his most fervent supporters would have to concede that this assessment he gave to the Washington Post in 1995 is a bit over the top: “Obsessed recently with Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, [Gingrich] likened the appropriations triumph to the way the British expeditionary force maneuvered against the French during the Peninsular War, a campaign in Portugal and Spain in the early 1800s that eventually led to Wellington’s ascendance and Napoleon’s abdication.”
These are just three of the many self-comparisons to historical figures Gingrich has made over the years, which the Romney campaign compiled in a press release last week (and I wrote about previously here).
Gingrich’s capacity for humility is only slightly below Donald Trump’s. But for some reason, that hasn’t seemed to bother conservative voters. Despite all the attacks on Obama’s egotism, they actually seem to like this trait in Newt. It’s not completely incomprehensible — when somebody’s on your side, arguing for the same things you believe in, a little over-confidence doesn’t seem like such a bad thing.
But if we’ve learned anything from the last three years, it’s that delusions of grandeur don’t translate well into governing. Many of Obama’s lofty campaign promises of 2008 – post-partisanship, government transparency, and so on – were never delivered.
And based on what we know about Gingrich, it’s unlikely he would even be able to deliver on the campaign promises he’s making for the general election. The seven Lincoln-Douglas-style debates he vows to have with President Obama have almost no chance of ever happening. And even in the three regular debates, there’s no guarantee Gingrich would emerge a winner. He’s a good debater, not an extraordinary one, and the conduct that’s made him so popular at the GOP debates would likely only alienate independent voters.
You’d think a man with Gingrich’s personal and professional history – especially one who claims to be on a path to redemption – would be cautious before touting his own greatness. He compares himself to eminent historical leaders, but the greatest Republican presidents – Lincoln and Reagan – were notably humble and self-effacing. The more Gingrich tries to place himself on the same plane as these leaders, the faster he seems to shrink.
One small point: I agree with your assessment of Gingrich's egotism and him facing the need to translate the big ideas that flow from it into policy–Santorum noted that Gingrich had an idea a minute but couldn't execute well. But as a small example of that need it may be unfair to criticize him for lauding a number of Lincoln-Douglas style debates that have no chance of happening because Obama won't entertain them. There will be no lack of execution in this because, beyond Gingrich's control, as noted, Obama, likely, will never agree. But then there is a potential meme awaiting Obama, that I think Gingrich has thought through– that Obama is afraid to take him on substantively and is content to reduce himself to sound bites, talking points and bits of time answers to complicated questions deserving much more time for exploration: not a bad calculation that.
Newt's huge ego is only slightly larger than his big mouth. Newt is convinced that he is the sharpest orator in the building and that his quick tongue and biting rhetoric is all that a candidate needs. But Newt's ego and his smart mouth are exactly what destroyed his first campaign and soon enough will destroy him again. nNewt has convinced three women to marry him and convinced two of them to leave him, so far. nNewt has serious relationship problems in his private life, and far too often, like when he was Speaker, in his political life. nNewt doesn't play well with others, and never has. nNewt has managed to keep that hidden most of the time but like most supreme egotists it will once again become apparent that Newt can really only play with himself.
He won't leave Callista. And she won't leave him. It's a John and Yoko kind of thing.
And this from a supporter of the best president ever with the possible exceptions of FDR, Lincoln and LBJ. (LBJ???) Oh, Lucy, you are so funneeeeeee n
Newt is a buffoon, a human hand grenade constantly threatening to pull his own pin. (Go ahead!) n nThe infatuation with Newt is a sign that Republican primary voters are not ready to choose someone who can GOVERN. They've spent too many years watching Fox News and participating in the degradation of American politics into a cheezy indoor sport for couch potatoes.
Geeeeeeeez… what a snotty, snarky comment. I suppose voters should just let their "betters" like you choose the nominee. n nI suppose Romney is your idea of a perfect candidate?
yeah, but boston has a point. Newt IS a buffoon, and I don't believe he can beat Obama. so why is everything he says so wonderful to conservatives who really should know better? Romney's not perfect, but I think he can win. Gingrich–no way.
Wait, politics isn't a cheezy indoor sport for couch potatoes? Strangely, Ann nCoulter agrees with you a thousand percent! That would be Ann Coulter as in, well herself. Beyond irony.
In my view, and I think there is support at RedState, Newt Gingrich is an, unlikely, avatar of anti-Establishment of which Mitt Romney is opposing Avatar. Personal characteristics are near irrelevant in this view. n nAs Erick Erickson put it "…Mitt Romney who no one much cares for outside of well paid consultants, lobbyists, and First Class Acela Express Republicans in Washington and New York…" will have to make Newt more toxic to the Republican base than Mitt himself. n nNot only won't this work, it feeds Newt Gingrich's narcissistic need for attention. n nIt may be that the Republican lose to Obama in order to reorient the Republican party to a more principled position rather than another group of people getting rich from government.
By definition no humble person had ever run for President of our country. Can one imagine a candidate thinking: I am not worthy of leading anybody … therefore I will run for the Presidency of the United States? n nThe true narcissist believes in his exalted abilities despite the fact that he/she cannot cite any real achievements and, sadly, we have seen that there are enough people who, illogically, will put that person in power. n nBut whether one likes Newt Gingrich or not, or thinks that he is eligible, there are no doubts of Newt's achievements when he was in power. Let us not forget that he had already been third in line for the Presidency.
sorry, Newt isn't just a run-of-the-mill narcissist: he makes Obama look modest! seriously. this guy is so full of himself it's difficult for me to watch the debates anymore.
"most seriously professorial politician since Woodrow Wilson" n nDoes he remember who Woodrow Wilson was and did? n nI so wanted Michelle Bachmann….