Posted on 07/22/2006 2:17:31 AM PDT by qlangley
Eight years ago there were obvious front-runners for the Presidency: George W Bush and Al Gore. Today, the battle in both parties is far more open. I have already looked at the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and John McCain . It is time to look at the most interesting candidate in either party: Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich has a remarkable history. He galvanized the Republican Party around a national agenda in 1994, and became the Party’s first Speaker in decades. He established the first enduring Republican majority since the 1920s. And yet, it is his successor, Denny Hastert, who became the longest serving Republican Speaker ever. Gingrich’s own leadership was brought down amid controversy and scandal. The scandals may have been minor – sexual indiscretions without the complication of perjury, and question marks over a book deal – but Gingrich proved unable to ride them out. Why?
Because he had been comprehensively out-maneuvered by Bill Clinton. Gingrich, with his historian’s eye, had hoped to restore the Speakership to its historic place as the dominant force in domestic policy. With the Cold War over, Gingrich saw this as achievable. Yet the growth in the federal government during the Twentieth Century probably made it impossible. By World War One, the federal government had acquired its own tax-raising powers. The Speaker also acquired a Congressional rival, when the Senate moved to direct elections.
But the failings were personal, too. Gingrich fizzes with ideas. He is a visionary, with an eye for the broad sweep of American history. He isn’t always right, but he is always interesting. The Speaker’s Chair does not require those talents. It is about minutiae, not vision; about compromise, not ideology. The job involved cobbling together majorities for legislation. He sub-contracted that role to his Whip, Tom DeLay, who pretty soon took over the entire shop.
Gingrich’s talents are not suited to legislative leadership, but are perhaps just right for an executive role. Unfortunately, there is a problem. Gingrich the President has to first of all become Gingrich the candidate. After leaving the House he publicly mused on the possibility of seeking the Governorship of Georgia. When elected to the House, Gingrich had been the only Republican in the Georgia delegation. By 1994 Republicans were the majority. The state had never elected a Republican governor, but perhaps the time was now right. For whatever reason, Gingrich decided against. He may have believed the incumbent, Roy Barnes, was unbeatable. If so he was wrong, Barnes was defeated by another Republican, Sonny Perdue. If Gingrich were now the successful Governor of a medium-sized state he would have rebuilt that damaged reputation. As a writer and college professor he has not.
Gingrich remains a deeply polarizing figure. He will find it hard to win the Republican nomination (despite a loyal following) and if selected, he would be a major target for the Democrat attack machine. He would be a hard sell to the electorate. But even without winning, Gingrich could shake up the race. Others will have to react to his ideas. This is the man who forced a reluctant Bill Clinton to accept welfare reform and a balanced budget. But it is also the man who has allowed Clinton to take the credit. And that tells us everything we need to know: a great eye for policy; poor instincts for politics.
Quentin Langley is editor of www.quentinlangley.net an academic at the University of Cardiff and is a columnist with Campaigns & Elections. This article was first published in the Common Sense series for Lake Champlain Weekly.
Excellent essay. Thanks for posting..My ticket for 2008: Rudy/Newt.It works..
Thanks for the comment.
I have to disagree. Newt has underlying core values. They may not be same as yours (or indeed mine), but he has them.
One of his problems is that he is rather weak in terms of practical political instincts.
I think where I stand is that he would (probably) be a great POTUS but a flawed candidate. It really is necessary to balance these things. I am convinced that Barry Goldwater would have been a truly visionary President. It is possible that so would Steve Forbes and Pete DuPont. Choosing a great losing candidate is easy.
But if Rudy runs, I don't think it will be on an anti-gun agenda. I think he will seek to downplay guns, abortion and gay issues to get through the primaries, and the way to do this is to run as a very hardline federalist. He will say those are issues for the states and municipalities. The gun policy that was right for NY City is not the same policy that is right for Wyoming. Duh! Next question, please.
There are a surprising number of conservatives who adore Rudy. John McCain, who is FAR more conservative on the issues, arouses a lot more hostility.
Yes, I live in England and work in Wales.
British citizen married to an American. Long-standing interest in American politics, which is how I became a columnist for an American newspaper.
We will indeed see. I think I hang around in conservative blogs as much as you do. I agree that there are people who are hostile to him. It just seems to me - and in the polls - nowhere near as many as you might expect, given his policy positions.
I actually think he is MORE popular than a divorced supporter of gay rights, abortion and gun control probably ought to be, on paper.
I agree, this is his biggest weakness IMHO. I think the dying MSM mitigates that to some extent.
What I love about Newt is he is an idea guy. He has given thought to almost every issue, and even though you might not agree with him, you'd better have your ducks in a row if you plan to argue with him.
Even though I know it's not that big of a challenge, he beats on Alan Colmes like a rented mule ;)
Agreed. Which is why his campaign will stir things up, even if he doesn't get very far. Others will have to react to what he says.
What I am suggesting is, that you have it backwards. That he actually stronger than he ought to be on paper.
I am not suggesting that he is prohibitively strong, or anything like that, but that the level of support he has from conservatives who would never dream of supporting anyone else with his views is surprising.
I have no intention of ignoring the polls. It is one of my areas of study. What I will continue to do is to read them intelligently. A large number of supporters - such as McCain has - is not enough if there is an even larger group determined to see you beaten. That does not appear to be the case with Rudy, at the moment. As the primary season approaches, and people focus on his actual views, and not just on a picture of him standing amid the rubble of the WTC, that may change. But that has not happened yet.
Perhaps you are right that his campaign is doomed to die. But it is not dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.