Why Gingrich, why now?
Commenter “reliapundit” has a question:
Gingrich retook the lead in SC thanks to…conservatives…who no longer seem to have any problems endorsing a serial adulterer—one who gave the finger to the Tea Party when he endorsed Scozzafava.
And thanks to a conservative base that sounds more like the anti-capitalist bolsheviks of the OWS than free-marketeers.
It’s insane.
The SC crowd applauded applauded the serial adulterer who had to pay the house $300,000 in fines due to ethical violations, but they booed a self-made millionaire who has paid all his taxes.
Bizarre.
Can you explain this mass hysteria?
I can certainly try, as I did here, in a comment on which I will now expand.
Voting is not completely or perhaps even predominantly rational, although we like to think it is. The right tends to run somewhat less on emotion and more on rationality than the left (at least, IMHO, on average) but is by no means immune to this sort of behavior.
Emotion in politics is not necessarily a bad thing. As I’ve said elsewhere several times, we must evaluate and react to candidates on subtle signals they give out about what kind of people they are: likeable or not, calm or excitable, arrogant or less arrogant (I’ll leave out “humble,” because most candidates aren’t going to exhibit that particular characteristic), able to laugh at oneself or not, comfortable in one’s skin or awkward.
You get the idea. These things—which I’ll summarize as personality and temperament—are not irrelevant to how a person would function as president.
The last few election cycles have featured an electorate with its own emotions at high pitch. Last time it was the Democrats who had been through the ringer for eight years (with a legislative reversal two years earlier, 2006, that had given them some hope), and believed themselves to be due. After a tough primary, they united behind a (to them, at least) charismatic candidate who emphasized hope for the change they were looking for.
Now, after three years of that and two of a Democratic Congress, plus a lot of anti-conservative reporting in the MSM and the rise of the Tea Party and a very bad financial climate, both parties are pretty angry but Republicans are more so.
A lot of Republicans also have a feeling of angry desperation about their candidates. Few people are really happy with the slate, and it’s particularly galling because most people perceive Obama to be highly vulnerable this year. This should be our time, they think; and this group’s all we’ve got to show for it?
In that climate, it’s no surprise that a Gingrich might rise to the fore. After all, he’s the near-perfect candidate for an angry conservative electorate that’s also angry at perceived RINOs such as Romney and 2008”²s McCain, whose wishy-washy moderation and lack of fight is perceived as having led to Obama’s victory, and whose candidacy is thought to have been “forced down our throats” by a conspiracy of Republican elites.
That’s the angry crowd Gingrich plays to when he gives it back to the media when they ask him gotcha questions during the debate, the crowd that sees Romney as the same-old same-old McCain-esque pap. They want blood (metaphorically speaking), and Gingrich gives it to them.
Gingrich is also perceived as being the best person to beat Obama in debate. Despite his considerable baggage and his own “flip-flopping” (for example, he supported an individual Romneycare-like mandate), he (unlike Romney) is also considered the true conservative in terms of policy; after all, he led the conservative return to power in the mid-90s. As for Gingrich’s Bain attack—which reliapundit notes has the crowd acting a bit like OWS—it plays to a populist strain and “anti-finance-guy” sentiment that exists in conservatism to a certain extent and is not limited to the left.
The ethics charges? They’re seen as minor and trumped-up, for the most part—whether the general electorate will see it that way or not.
Gingrich’s supporters shrug off Gingrich’s personal history of marital cheating as being of little import. It’s been my observation that many people (on both sides) will jettison principles like the idea of fidelity, and ignore old violations, if they think a candidate can offer a lot of other things (or even one big thing) that they like very much. Plus, the rationalization is that Gingrich has gotten religion and repented. To Christian fundamentalists personal morals are certainly important, but religiously-motivated repentance is understood as being very real and meaningful, and requires forgiveness. Personally, I don’t buy it in Gingrich’s case (I also find his current wife puzzlingly strange). But then, I’m not an evangelical, nor am I a Gingrich-supporter.
Another phenomenon occurring here is that, until the race boils down to two candidate—and especially while there are still four—any single candidate can win with about 30% or so of the vote. That can represent a small and extreme faction of the party. I always get worried when there are more than two candidates in a race (and especially more than three), because of that phenomenon. Gingrich is the beneficiary of it at the moment.
But primaries are primaries and generals are generals. What works in the first doesn’t always work in the second: just ask George McGovern or Mike Dukakis. I’ve noted before that I don’t think Gingrich will beat Obama in the general, if nominated. The particular form anger he’s channeling is unlikely to be appealing to anyone other than the right, and a certain segment of it at that.
I don’t know whether anger is going to appeal to a wider audience identifed as a certain segment of the right. I’ve noticed in comments about Michelle and Barack Obama, especially lately, a vehement and universal hatred that certainly doesn’t make it into the press. And I’m not talking about right wing blogs, either, but rather left wing news groups like Reuters, AP and Yahoo.
Neoneocon,
You wrote ” It’s been my observation that many people (on both sides) will jettison principles like the idea of fidelity, and ignore old violations, if they think a candidate can offer a lot of other things. ”
If I may weigh in. I’m sure that there are, indeed, voters who will jettison principles, but I also think that there is another side to that observation.
As a case in point I am very much a traditionalist. I also believe that Newt’s past behavior is appalling. I don’t overlook that, but I weigh the choice between inappropriate personal behavior in a candidate who I believe) can accomplish what needs to be done v. stellar personal behavior in a vandidate who has not yet convinved me that he can or will. I suggest that, in many cases, it has to do with not being a one-issue voter rather than the discarding of principles or turning a blind eye to objectionable behavior.
As for Newt’s campaigning to date, the question is, if he is the nominee, is this how he will campaign in the general election or will he pivot and re-design a campaign to better address a broader audience? I hope the latter, but of course that’s just wishful thinking.
Finally as to his “finding religion” I am suspect as are you. The only real proof of that will be his behavior going forward.
Curtis: as I said above, the left and Democrats are angry too. I agree with that completely. They are angry at something completely different however, and for completely different reasons, and although Newt channels anger it is most definitely not their anger he’s channeling.
T: I believe you are illustrating my point. You are making a decision to jettison principles like fidelity (not in your own life, of course, but as a criteria that is of the utmost importance in a public figure) as important because Gingrich is offering you something you consider much more important. The latter outweighs the former, for you.
At least, that’s what I was trying to say. I didn’t mean that principles like fidelity become of no import, all else being equal. But all else is almost never equal.
Good point that it is different anger, and it is a point that keeps me up at night! Especially when I consider that the Left is angry at Obama for not doing enough socialist work.
But there also seems to be a universal anger at Obama’s duplicity as evidenced by the following Yahoo news item regarding Spike Lee giving Obama an expensive pair of sneakers. That anger is multiplied by Obama’s living like the 1% he decries. (Hey! I just used the word “decry” and it wasn’t in a college newspaper article.)
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/spike-lee-presents-president-obama-special-pair-air-181824652.html
Obama condemns the 1% but he loves living like them.
Approved 110 to 11.
So, in this the left and right agree. Obama is a liar and a hypocrit.
Who do you think would protect the Constitution more? Romney or Gingrich.
My gut tells me Gingrich–that’s my Malcolm Gladwell “blink” epiphany.
But then I said Perry would win New Hampshire so what the hell do I know?
Maybe we are a generation wandering in the wilderness for our sins of omission. My comfort lies in the new crop of tea party youngsters.
We will never give up. Obama winning, as some say, is not the end. As if the sum of American politics is the Presidency.
In WWII the thread of freedom and liberty became stretched so thin and required miracles like the Battle of Britain and Dunkirk to prevail. The will to resist must never rest upon victory but upon right and wrong and our dedication to our posterity.
Neoneocon,
Perhaps our distinction is one of semantics. I don’t see it as jettisoning an important principle. I see it as being in a situation in which either of my decisions is imperfect. I think that this is the very nature of compromise; the question in making an imperfect decision (most important decisions, I think) is not will one relent on a principle, but which principle will one relent on? To me, the verb “jettison” connotes a lack of remorse as well as a sense of a finality–i.e., that by overlooking NEWT’S past one can never meaningfully object to such behavior in the future without being hypocritical.
Perhaps I’m just over-thinking the entire thing.
First, this neo essay is outstanding. Outstanding.
Second, I am curious about the use of “jettison principles”. The phrase prompts, in me, an emotional reaction: “jettison principles” is fightin words.
Further, I flatly disagree that “fidelity is a criteria of utmost importance in a public figure.”
The issue, re Gingrich, is past infidelity. I flatly assert that most Christian evangelicals do not consider absence of past infidelity to be a criteria of utmost importance. I flatly assert that – maybe better than other demographics – Christian evangelicals understand temptation and weakness and sin and atonement. Christianity is grounded in human imperfection – which you, neo, referenced – yet “jettison principles” and “fidelity … utmost importance” seem, to me, accidentally at odds with your reference to human imperfection and atonement. Or, at any rate, raise my level of emotional response. I am not jettisoning any principles. My principles encompass human imperfection and temptation and fallibility. Harrumph! 🙂
Third, I add something to the neo essay:
Republican donors were early to coalesce around Romney, and were early to declare Romney as inevitable, b/c Republican donors are footing the bill. Repub donors do not want their dollars expended on attacking Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich. The longer the primary stays competitive: the more money the Romney campaign will require. Republican donors do not want to spend more of their own money than they believe they ought have to spend. This is partly why the big Republican money is dismissive of all other candidates, and of all Repub voters who support other candidates: it costs more money, and it is inefficient expenditure. In the opinions of the Repub big money donors.
Also, the hoi polloi, such as me, are gleefully giving both middle fingers to all the Repub big money. The hoi polloi, such as me, do not even LIKE Republicans. We think Republicans SUCK. We are small government conservatives. And we are sending out profane salutes (to wishy washy establishment big money Repubs) as if we are Manhattan cab drivers.
gcotharn: I explained “jettison principles” in my comment above to “T.” I wasn’t using it to mean that principles don’t matter any more to those people. I was using it to mean “throwing overboard” as in “ignoring for now.” When you jettison something it doesn’t mean it’s not valuable. It means that in an emergency you pay attention to what’s important and don’t have the luxury of paying much attention to that other thing in this situation.
But I agree that it was a shorthand word that was not a good choice to convey what I was thinking, which was not a complete disregard of but rather a balancing of competing interests.
As for the rest, I already said that it’s a question of repentance and forgiveness for evangelicals. That is a very real mitigating factor for them, as I think I made very clear.
Something else, re we gleeful small government conservative hoi polloi: we have zero motivation to vote for Romney. Voting for NotRomney is win, win, win.
First, we do not want Romney.
Second, supporting NotRomney equates to gleefully giving the finger to wishy washy big money moderate Repubs whom we detest.
Third, Romney is so weak … that our opposition to him only drives him further and further to the right.
Fourth, by pressing Romney now: we are toughening him up and better preparing him to succeed in a general election. Pressuring Romney now, on Bain and on tax returns, and hopefully, on Romneycare, is the best favor we could do for Mitt Romney. Palin was right: iron sharpens iron. And we commenters were right: it is a GIFT for Romney to deal with these issues now, in January, rather than in September. And, for the love of everything which is holy: Romney needs sharpening up! His reaction to Bain, and to tax returns, has been horrifyingly inadequate. Romney’s reaction has been TERRIBLE. He cannot win the general unless he sharpens up.
So, from our perspective: what is the downside to opposing Romney? Either NotRomney wins, which we love; or Romney is driven further and further right, which we love. Meanwhile, we gleefully give the finger to the moderate Repubs whom we detest. It is win, win, win, win, cubed and squared and resquared and recubed. For us, there is no downside.
We DO NOT believe that driving Romney to the right will damage his chances in the general. Those of you who believe that are misguided: are buying into a leftist media meme. We believe that driving Romney rightward will enhance his chances in the general. Seriously: that is exactly what we believe, and we are correct. The rest of you are misguided, deluded, and oversusceptible to the propoganda of free ackin Wolf Blitzer.
I think gcotharn hit the nail on the head – Gingrich is riding a wave of Tea Partiers and other conservatives who are furious at the beltway-politics-as-usual Republican leadership.
They are also furious that the Left has successfully used its position in the media to hound appealing conservative candidates out of the running.
Conservatives on several blogs are already talking about the need to win Congress to “keep Romney’s feet to the fire if he’s elected”.
It seems appropriate to repeat that we’re not nominating a Holy Saviour. No candidate is perfect.
If each has some quantity of flaws, I would prefer the person who has a greater share of those flaws in his underpants and his bedroom than in his mind and his office.
foxmarks: the difference between you and me is that I think Gingrich has a greater share of those flaws on all 4 of the criteria you mention.
At least, that’s one difference between you and me :-).
Curtis: I have a different take on who would be more likely to protect the constitution, Newt or Mitt.
Perhaps it would be Gingrich—unless, that is, he had a pet project that made it expedient not to do so. Then I consider it possible that he might (to coin a phrase)—ahem, jettison his strict adherence to it.
Why do I say that? After all, isn’t it Mitt who’s the flip-flopper? Isn’t he the one who defends the individual mandate, which is probably unconstitutional? Actually, both men defended it initially for the states. And Romney has continued to defend it only for the states–for whom it is constitutional.
Other than that issue, I’m trying to think in what way Romney has ever advocated something unconstitutional. He seems to be a basic federalist to me (on abortion as well). Perhaps you can tell me on what you base your idea that he would not defend the constitution, other than the fact that he’s generally more mild-mannered than Gingrich.
Gingrich, on the other hand, has shown an alarming tendency to jettison (that word again!) the conservative defense of the sort of job destruction that sometimes comes with trying to save a failing company, as long as he thinks the change of heart might benefit him in the polls. That has alarmed me. In addition, I’m very confused as to why Gingrich’s statements on what seems to be a general individual mandate (rather than state by state) as recently as May of 2011 have been ignored by his supporters. See this:
Gingrich was talking about at the federal level, by the way, not just the state level. Romney originally wanted something very similar to be part of Romneycare (state level only), but he was overruled about the bond part by the Mass legislature (I don’t have time to look it up right now, but I recall reading that).
In addition, I have another concern about Gingrich vs. Romney on this issue (the constitution). Gingrich is more motivated by a drive to personal power than Romney is—more grandiose, more full of himself. In that way he much more clearly resembles Obama than Romney does. That represents more of a temptation to bend the rules. Some Gingrich supporters may think that’s okay if the end result is something they like. I don’t, and I’m assuming you don’t either.
I’m not saying Newt would do these things. But to me his superiority on the issue is not at all apparent.
gcotharn: the downside is that Gingrich is the nominee and loses in the general, whereas Romney would have won. That means four more years of Obama.
That’s the reasoning. I don’t have a crystal ball and do not know whether it would actually pan out that way, but I think there’s a good chance of it, and that’s my concern and that’s the argument against your “win-win” claim. And I most definitely do not think 4 years of Romney would be the same as four years of Obama. To me the difference is vast.
Nor do I think—and have never said—that pushing Romney somewhat to the right will backfire in the general if he’s the nominee.
YES, I agree Neo, which is why I think the Presidential election is a sideshow of the war. It is an important battle, but a battle which the Left has set and maintained the place and munitions. Okay, so we cannot overcome superior preparations because we were complacent.
But, we are up and coming.
The commenter sounds like a leftist.
Leftists always accentuate only one side about a republican, the bad side.
A truthful person would remind us – we are not the ones who need it since we know it – that Newt took the Congress back in something like a miracle, then stopped Clinton dead in his tracks and gave us more prosperity than we thought possible up to that point.
Truthful people will tell the side about Newt that is a raging Patriot with ideas and plans and a real love for his country.
There are many more than two divorces and a no doubt semi-bogus House “ethics” charge to the man.
Reliapundit is a conservative? Whatever…
Since I am pretty much a Constitutionalist, evaluating Mitt and Newt by that standard is extra-interesting.
Mitt likely has the better feel for the Founders’ vision. I think it is both in his business history and a component of his religion.
Newt likely has a better legal understanding, and certainly a better historical understanding.
Neither meets my standards for strict adherence to the text. Mitt is more likely to extend and abuse the General Welfare clause. Newt is more likely to extend and abuse the Executive Powers. In both men, I see a desire to justify what they consider important. I prefer a view that sticks to the law, no matter how wonderful the unconstitutional idea might be. I prefer a defender to a justifier.
In sloganeering, Mitt will bail me out and Newt will lock me up. I just want to be left alone.
foxmarks: I think Gingrich may have more knowledge of the history of the Constitution (since history is his field). But I think Romney would have the better legal grasp of it, most likely. He has a dual law and business degree from Harvard.
Mike Mc.: Newt’s two divorces are not so much the issue as the circumstances of the divorces. It’s really a euphemism to say it’s the divorces that are the problem (not that I think that’s what you’re saying, by they way). As far as I can tell, he made a habit of adultery. The two women he married (second and third wives) are not the only ones he cheated with, either, although I can’t find much detailed information on the subject.
He had an affair with his present wife for 6 years before they married, and he was married that entire time to another woman. Not exactly what most Americans are looking for in a First Lady, and although I grant that that’s a very secondary issue, it still has some meaning to many people. I wonder whether there are some Cain-type accusations waiting in the wings as well. I think those might be more damaging than his ex-wife’s diatribe, especially with voters in the general who, unlike Republican primary voters in South Carolina, have no particular reason to think of him fondly.
Religious people may believe he’s repented and forgive him. Some of his supporters may not care. But the entire history is maximally sleazy—not just divorce but a philanderer right up there with the worst of Bill Clinton and perhaps more. Republicans are often accused of hypocrisy on moral issues. Their support of Gingrich could even hurt the entire Republican Party this year.
I continually am astounded at those with tunnel vision who don’t see these huge potential vulnerabilities. It’s certainly possible that voters won’t care in the end. But I have always felt they forgave Clinton because he was seen as a lovable scamp. Gingrich is not.
Another difference, of course, is that Clinton continued his escapades in the Oval Office. Whether or not Gingrich will continue his is unpredictable, but there is a risk. People with such a strong history of compulsive sexual acting-out as Gingrich has usually find it very difficult not to backslide.
“It’s been my observation that many people (on both sides) will jettison principles like the idea of fidelity, and ignore old violations, if they think a candidate can offer a lot of other things (or even one big thing) that they like very much.”
It appears from my outsider’s view that social conservatism is now pretty much a dead letter in American politics, and right-wingers in America are concentrating on picking up whatever pieces and scraps of fiscal conservatism that can still be salvaged.
It’s a pragmatic choice, to be sure. I don’t think I’d be doing different if I were an American citizen right now. But it is sad to see the squandering of that conservative decade (the 1980s) reach its logical conclusion, from the failure to repeal Roe v. Wade to a total abandonment of social conservatism in politics almost 40 years later (a significant number; cf. Psalms 95:10).
With the demise of Biblical morality in informing American politics, traditional values are set to be confined to pockets of righteous remnants, parts of rural America still untouched, the homeschooled et cetera. The main damage of the Gramscian “Long March Through The Institutions” has been done, leaving a society, as in Europe, that cuts off its flow of future blood in a river of innocent slaughtered blood, so that, even if fiscal conservatism manages to repeal the worst excesses of communist thralldom, full recovery is impossible, being dependent on demographic growth. The foul poison has done its work.
Everyone must vote. I too vote in my country’s elections, even when none of the candidates is anything to get excited about. However, in the big picture, it seems that the future belongs to the remnant who keep in their private and community lives the values that, through the slow and patient trickery of enemies within, have ceased to infuse the body politic of the country.
With this bittersweet note I end my observation from afar.
Sincerely,
Your friend in Israel.
Gingrich was born in 1943, so he’s done shot his wad in the sex dept., even with Viagra. Triumph is the ultimate orgasm.
Alpha males do tend to do it more, with more femmes. That’s just a fact. Do I really have to point out JFK, RFK, MLKJr, in addition to WJC, Wilbur Mills, Bob Livingston, (and the list goes on) ? I’m not approving of it, but it is a biologic fact. The esteemed Churchill had a mistress throughout WWII.
Just give the sex thing a rest.
Yes, ZionTruth, the American social conservatives may become the new ‘conversos’, the crypto-Jews of post-1492 Spain. But not wothout a fight.
1. Newt has owned up to his mistakes: Scozzafava, the global warming ad with Nancy, his sordid love life.
2. Mittens, on the other hand, still thinks ORomneyCare is still the greatest thing since sliced bread.
3. Mittens also made a big deal about Newt taking money from Freddie Mac. So far as I know, Newt provided the services requested at a agreed to price. Is that not also OWSing?
4. Mittens has held pretty much every position possible. He was against it before he was for it before he was against it. I don’t trust the man further than I can throw him.
I have no great love for Newt. However, I am positive he is more conservative than Mittens.
IRA Darth Aggie:
“Mitt has held pretty much every position possible” is a myth unsupported by facts. I’ve written about his position changes here and elsewhere:
Also please see this (I don’t know how good that site is, cause I’ve only read a small part of it, but it looks interesting).
Romney did not attack the idea of getting fees for services rendered. He specifically attacked Gingrich (the conservative) for working for Fannie and Freddie, entities he connected to the housing bubble and the resultant financial crisis, and which are GSEs (government sponsored enterprises, albeit publicly traded ones) rather than private enterprises. So no, it was a very different sort of thing than the nature of Gingrich’s attack on Bain, which I’ve written about at length elsewhere.
I would say that Gingrich is slightly more conservative than Romney. If that’s your criterion, then by all means vote for him. But he has many other drawbacks that I have delineated elsewhere as well.
Your characterization of Romney’s attitude towards Romneycare is a mischaracterization. He defends Romneycare for Massachusetts, period. And by the way, as recently as May of 2011, Gingrich defended mandates or required bonds for health care insurance on the FEDERAL level, which Romney has not done. See this:
Remember that he’s saying this on the federal level, something Romney has not said. And by the way, you should study the actual history of Romneycare in Massachusetts (see this):
Are you aware of any of this? Does it matter to you in your assessment of Romney?
Note the similarity between what Gingrich was proposing on the federal level in May of 2011, and what Romney was proposing on the state level in Massachusetts when he was governor (and never proposed at the federal level, by the way). Who’s the more conservative?
Don Carlos wrote: “Gingrich was born in 1943, so he’s done shot his wad in the sex dept., even with Viagra. ”
I’m not sure what sort of field research you’ve done on this, but you are incorrect there. Many philanderers (and even faithful guys) keep going LONG after that. Not only with Viagra, but with vigor.
I would put Newt at 50-50 in the sex dept at best, medically speaking. Sorry Neo, but ‘many’ is far from ‘most’. I do suggest we give the sex stuff a rest.
Don Carlos: If you’ve paid any attention to this blog, you’ll know that I barely mention the “sex stuff.” I really couldn’t care less about Newt Gingrich’s sex life, then or now (in fact, the less I think about it, the better). The point has to do with how trustworthy he is, because of his serial adultery (broken vows), and his vulnerability to scandal if he continues with his philandering, which is certainly a possiblity, because it seems to be in the nature of a compulsion with him.
My response to you was not really meant to be about Gingrich at all, it was about the sexuality of men of his age (he is 68). I was saying that many are more than capable of continuing with their sexual lives. What does “most” have to do with it?
In fact, however, I just got curious and looked it up (again, I’m not talking about Gingrich here; I have no knowledge about his potency and absolutely no desire to know about it). It says that 70% of all 70-year-old men are potent. And that’s apparently without Viagra. So I guess it is most.
I’m just standing up for mature males everywhere.
Yup, that’s what the link says. But more medical sources put it at around 50% at age 60-70, declining with each decade of maledom. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a coin toss as to whether it remains a possibility for Newt or not. So I have amended my remark!
I do not find Mrs. G particularly zaftig, either. Maybe that should raise one’s concern re possibilities!
P.S. I do try to pay attention!