Back in the days when Newt Gingrich was House minority whip, he used to drop by newspapers to gab about his grand design for invigorating the Republican Party and ending the Democratic lock on that chamber that had lasted nearly 40 years. He visited my office on a couple of occasions, and by the time he left I would be reeling from the nonstop promotion of his ambitious vision.
Gingrich was right to be optimistic, it turns out — and will go down in history as the principal architect of the Republican revolution of 1994. But the very qualities that served him so well while leading a frontal assault on the Democratic fortress have sometimes hobbled him since: a grandiose sense of destiny, overweening confidence and a weakness for extravagant (if wonderfully entertaining) rhetoric.
As recently as last month, Gingrich compared himself to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. He also said this election’s choice would be “comparable, I think, to 1860 and it may be comparable in some ways to 1788.”
Even if you didn’t recognize those dates, you could guess which two titans were running for president then.
If Republicans choose Gingrich as their candidate, they should brace themselves for a roller coaster ride. A good debater he most certainly can be, but in other contexts he will say things that would never pass buttoned-down Mitt Romney’s lips: such as wondering last year whether Obama “is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together (his actions). That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”
So outrageous. So Newt.
He actually started his campaign last summer with a similarly unfair slam against the House Republicans’ Medicare proposal, ripping it as “right-wing social engineering.”
Much is being written these days of Gingrich’s flip-flopping on the individual health-insurance mandate and cap and trade, as well as his past support for such spending extravaganzas as the Medicare drug entitlement. But the idea that he’s a conservative turncoat doesn’t withstand inspection.
After a careful review of Gingrich’s long record, the free-market Club for Growth did identify enough “problems in Speaker Gingrich’s record … to give pause.” But it meanwhile praised his “consistent support for pro-growth tax reform, free trade, Social Security reform, tort reform, and political free speech,” as well as his commitment to free enterprise.
“One could reasonably expect a President Gingrich to lead America in a pro-growth and limited government direction generally, possibly with flashes of real brilliance and accomplishment, but also likely with some serious disappointments and unevenness.”
But is Gingrich electable? Will independent voters accept a 68-year-old, three-times married, former million-dollar consultant for Freddie Mac with a penchant for colorful, confrontational language? Or would Republicans have a better chance to win with Romney?
The arc of Romney’s career is less complex. A moderate Northeast Republican, he decided to run for president and, whether through conversion or opportunism, traded his views on a few important issues for those more compatible with the national GOP base. If elected, he is likely to govern as a “cautious conservative” — to quote National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru — which may not thrill the Tea Party but is possibly what independent voters, the key to this election, want.
And while Romney radiates “establishment,” he doesn’t radiate “corrupt Washington establishment,” which the public despises and to which a former Freddie Mac consultant will find himself linked.
“Newt Gingrich as president could turn the White House into an ideas factory,” declared The Washington Post this week. So true. And so irrelevant if Obama sweeps the swing states.
E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.
