But who knows what the future holds in store?
Reading op-eds about the principle choices to which we seem to have been reduced in the G.O.P. primaries reminds me of the misgivings I’ve long had about Newt Gingrich. Consider this from the estimable Charles Krauthammer:
Gingrich has his own vulnerabilities. The first is often overlooked because it is characterological rather than ideological: his own unreliability. Gingrich has a self-regard so immense that it rivals Obama’s — but, unlike Obama’s, is untamed by self-discipline.
Or this from George F. Will:
Gingrich, however, embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive. And there is his anti-conservative confidence that he has a comprehensive explanation of, and plan to perfect, everything….
His temperament — intellectual hubris distilled — makes him blown about by gusts of enthusiasm for intellectual fads, from 1990s futurism to “Lean Six Sigma” today….
Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how. Conservatism, in contrast, is both cause and effect of modesty about understanding society’s complexities, controlling its trajectory and improving upon its spontaneous order. Conservatism inoculates against the hubristic volatility that Gingrich exemplifies and Genesis deplores: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel.”
And if that isn’t enough, there’s always Michael Barone:
“Autodidact” is a fancy word for someone who is self-taught. Gingrich calls himself a historian and says his worldview was shaped at age 15 by viewing the bones at the ossuary at Verdun, site of a World War I battle. And he did earn a Ph.D. in history in 1971, with a dissertation on “Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945–1960.”
But he hasn’t pursued that or any other subject with scholarly rigor. Instead, in his voluminous writings and unusually lengthy speeches, you will find references to the futurist Alvin Tofler, to Olympic beach volleyball, to zoos and space exploration. You’ll find management-book lingo, salesmanship tips, offbeat and sometimes revealing facts and anecdotes….
As for the public, Gingrich became widely unpopular because of, as I wrote then, “a cocksureness, a professorial abstractness about policy, a more than occasional petulance and high self regard.”
He also showed a tin ear for proprieties, divorcing two wives to marry other women and signing a seven-figure book contract as speaker (later dropped), just as he signed up for seven figures from Freddie Mac after leaving office.
Asked a year ago whether he was running, Gingrich said, “Why wouldn’t I?” When his campaign staff resigned en masse, he persevered. Now we’ll see if voters entrust this autodidact with a position for which few of his colleagues think he is fitted.
When I moved to Georgia in 1985, Gingrich was a rising star in the state Republican Party—not exactly a major claim to fame at the time. His love affair then (and since) with intellectual fads and buzzwords left me cold. And he was always a polarizing figure. People you don’t know—like a former colleague from West Georgia, now a living history reenactor—can’t help telling you what they think of him (and not in a good way).
Perhaps he has changed. We can change, can’t we? (Charles Krauthammer cut his political teeth in the Carter Administration; Will was once less given to libertarianism and more to “statecraft as soulcraft” than he now seems to be, and Barone allegedly supported George McGovern in 1972.) But Gingrich’s recent intemperate attack on Paul Ryan and his assertion that those who are responsible for and profited from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (other than himself, of course) should be thrown in jail are hardly matters of ancient history.
I appreciate, and to some degree share, the discomfort with Mitt Romney. But I’m even less comfortable with Newt Gingrich. That could change. And I will have to make a choice eventually.
Joseph Knippenberg is Professor of Politics at Oglethorpe University.
December 5th, 2011 | 9:04 pm
At a certain point this cast of characters has to start reflecting on the character of the Republican voter…and not in a good way.
December 5th, 2011 | 9:12 pm
Krauthammer and Will are not conservatives and are, yes, I will say it— not as estimable as they would have you think.
December 5th, 2011 | 11:00 pm
It is tough to see who Gingrich’s natural constituency is.
Conservatives (and liberals) ought to dislike him for all the reasons given above — his terrible personal morality, his unflinching hubris and his crony capitalist dealings after leaving Congress.
Liberals and anyone who supports a higher level of discourse in the political realm don’t like his demagoguery where, for instance, he accused the highly respected nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office of being “reactionary socialists” or where he suggested that federal courts who issue rulings he doesn’t like have their Congressional appropriations threatened — an FDR-like interference in the separation of powers.
I guess that leaves us with right-leaning people who are nostalgic for the 1990s or who have some visceral attraction to his red meat talking points.
December 5th, 2011 | 11:46 pm
“And I will have to make a choice eventually.” Not unless you live in one of the early primary states. By the time the campaign rolls around to my state, the race is always over. There is a better way.
December 6th, 2011 | 6:30 am
I guess that leaves us with right-leaning people who are nostalgic for the 1990s or who have some visceral attraction to his red meat talking points.
Or Italians nostalgic for the 1930′s. What you describe sounds a lot like Italian fascism. You have traditionalist rhetoric, absolute contempt for liberals, combined with a strong arm ruler who doesn’t care for Constitutional niceties and also likes some big flashy projects undertaken by the state. That plus a ruler who seems like he wants to start building the 500 foot monuments to himself before he even gets in office, let alone actually doing anything while there.
December 6th, 2011 | 8:42 am
I believe the proper term is “Newtonian”…
Sounds more dignified, anyway.
December 6th, 2011 | 9:18 am
The Republican candidate, whoever it is, will not be great, but Obama is dangerous to the future of the United States. If the Republican wins, that will be why.
On the question of Newtism, I stand with Gussie Fink-Nottle.
December 6th, 2011 | 9:47 am
Almost everything in Newt Gingrich’s public career demonstrates he is not the sort of man who can be trusted with the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal.
For my part, if Romney is the nominee, I will certainly vote for him. If Gingrich is, I will stay home on election day. A lot of independents will see it the same way.
December 6th, 2011 | 11:34 am
God save us from Romney! He’s only a shade more conservative than Obama, and I imagine more people will abstain from the voting lines due to the negligible difference between the two than if Newt is the nominee.
Felapton, what is the basis for your statement concerning nukes? Granted, I’m young, but I haven’t heard of anything in Gingrich’s record which would lead one to believe he’s going to be popping them off. Certainly far less than the likelihood McCain would have.
December 6th, 2011 | 11:56 am
If Charles Krauthammer and George Will are not conservatives, what are they? They’ve been fooling me all this time.
December 6th, 2011 | 12:46 pm
In a discussion with my son the other day, I mentioned my fear (terror might be a better word) that the Republicans will nominate Gingrich. He said, “He had some great accomplishments in the ’90s, and you have to respect that.” My response was that he did, and I do. But a) in ’95 he got STOMPED by Clinton on the government shutdown, first by letting it happen, then by letting Clinton get away with entirely blaming the Republicans for it. b) He led the charge on impeaching Clinton for lying about adultery while doing the same thing himself. c) He’s got more baggage than an airport carousel; he’s an opposition researcher’s wet dream. d) There’s no filter between his head and his mouth, an annoying quality in anyone, a deadly one in a politician. I have absolutely no fear that Gingrich will ever become president, my nightmare is that he has no hope of defeating possibly the worst president since James Buchannan. As big a not-fan of Romney as I am, he has much more of a shot at beating Obama than does Gingrich. At this point, that’s all that matters to me.
December 6th, 2011 | 12:55 pm
Romney is center-right, but at least he’s an intelligent person who doesn’t cheat on his wife and earn the contempt of all his coworkers. Who knows what Gingrich’s politics really are? The only thing I can tell that he cares about is making money and self-aggrandizement.
December 6th, 2011 | 7:53 pm
Mr. Payne, I’m more inclined to the position of Bertie Wooster; can’t stand the slimy creatures.
December 7th, 2011 | 12:36 am
I wonder if the followers of Mr. Gingrich will congregate in “Newtist camps”?
December 7th, 2011 | 12:07 pm
CBS:
‘Newt Gingrich’s14-point lead over Mitt Romney among likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers is grounded in large part in support from Tea Party and evangelical voters, who have a far more positive view of Gingrich than they do Romney, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.’
serial adultery, ok; family values, not ok.
December 7th, 2011 | 12:32 pm
doug111: I have to admit, if that poll is accurate, it is odd.
Many will say it is because Romney is Mormon. However, couldn’t it be that for lots and lots and lots of people, Romney is just plain unlikeable? Even less likeable than Newt? (Which is going some.)
December 7th, 2011 | 1:04 pm
Mr. Payne,
For me Romney’s Mormonism is a non-issue. My distrust is based purely on observations of the times he has already (in but two-years) flip-flopped on issues. He strikes me as a man that goes whichever way the public wind blows, and that is hardly what we need. Newt, for all his arrogance, at least has a spine. Pride is the most common natural weakness of good leaders, and people need to realize that.
I don’t see how we can call a person with a demonstrated record of massively expanding government spending, instituting a failed public healthcare plan, and a past history of non-engagement on pro-life issues “center-right”. But then again, maybe that’s why I’ve told the Republican party six years running that I won’t make the mistake of donating to them again–too many of them are too liberal and spineless.
December 7th, 2011 | 2:41 pm
“Many will say it is because Romney is Mormon. However, couldn’t it be that for lots and lots and lots of people, Romney is just plain unlikeable? Even less likeable than Newt? (Which is going some.)”
It’s not just going ‘some’, it’s going quite far:
Romney has never (yet) been formally fined $300,000 and reprimanded for violating the law (by a vote of 395 to 28), while he was Speaker.
So, it’s not just repeated immorality, but gross illegality.
December 8th, 2011 | 7:11 am
[...] Knippenberg has some thoughts about Newt Gingrich, mainly quotes from others. For example: “Gingrich has a self-regard so immense that it [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact