In the fall of 1993, 25-year-old Maury Kennedy enrolled in a new course being offered at Kennesaw State University, located 20 miles north of Atlanta. “Renewing American Civilization” was its title, and its instructor was Newt Gingrich.
“Being new to Atlanta, I wanted to make friends,” Kennedy remembers, and the ten-week course was a practical option. On Saturdays, he and hundreds of other students would gather in a large auditorium to hear the congressman lecture for two hours. Although Gingrich was a notorious firebrand, “nobody dreamed he would become Speaker.”
Advertisement
But Kennesaw was a public school, and Gingrich’s critics griped that he was mixing academics with politics. In 1994, then, the congressman approached Floyd Falany, president of Reinhardt College — a private school in Waleska, Ga. — and asked if he could teach the course there.
“We had just built a state-of-the-art broadcast center,” Falany says, and Gingrich wanted to record his lectures and stream them over the Internet. Falany proposed the idea to the board of trustees, and though the members initially “had mixed emotions about it,” after debating it “for a considerable length of time,” they voted unanimously to approve the course.
It was a hit. For a small school “that didn’t even have a football team,” to nab the Speaker of the House of Representatives was a coup. In the winter of 1995, Gingrich gave ten lectures, while an assistant professor, Kathleen Minnix, handled administrative tasks: writing tests, correcting papers, assigning grades. “It worked beautifully,” Falany says.
Yes, Gingrich caused controversy. His opponents were furious that a college would dignify his pontifications by giving him a course. But Falany shrugged off the complaints. “It’s not unusual for colleges to have politicians teaching courses,” he notes. When Secretary of State Dean Rusk retired in 1969, the University of Georgia hired him to teach a course in international law, despite the fact that he lacked academic credentials.
And Gingrich was nonpartisan, maintains Falany, a registered Democrat. “I have a very, very positive remembrance of the course.”
But why did Gingrich want to teach a course at the same time as serving as Speaker? Longtime friend Tucker Andersen explains: “Part of him was excited about coming up with a course which he thought would have relevance and he would enjoy teaching in an educational setting.” The bigger reason, however, “was to help him refine and articulate the ideas about the uniqueness of American civilization, which is something he passionately believes in.”
While a flawed human being (aren't we all) unlike fellow Georgian Herman Cain, who many on the right swooned over and tried to jam down our throats, Gingrich actually knows something about American history, the Constitution and governing. Is he our best candidate to run against Obama? Since he was willing to actually give it a shot he's better than those who decided to not risk it and are sitting on the sidelines taking pot shots.
Republican primary voters have several candidates to choose from and ultimately they'll decide who wears our mantle to unseat the worst president in US history. The only hope Obama and Democrats have is the gum flappers of talk raido and their peers in punditry pull another 2006 and 2008 -- undercut Republicans and empower Democrats.
Are the lectures for this class still somewhere online?
At any rate, here we see the "taxonomical bug" that Mark Steyn rightly mocks. Let's concede that Newt Gingrich has too much faith in the efficacy of government to be a principled Reaganite conservative, and let's acknowledge his heavy "baggage" that derives ultimately from numerous, possibly fatal flaws for a presidential candidate.
One reason Glenn Beck's recent charge is so slanderous -- his asserting on national television that only race and racism could motivate a person to support Newt and not Obama -- is that Newt Gingrich VERY clearly loves this country and what he calls American civilization. The same cannot reasonbly be said about a man who surrounded himself with unrepentant domestic terrorists and a race-essentialist Marxist "pastor" who accused the U.S. government of creating AIDS as an act of attempted genocide.
His enthusiasm for this country is clear and even infectious, which is not something one can say about every Republican candidate, even if we do not doubt their patriotism.
I do think Newt is almost as unacceptible as Romney as a technocratic statist -- his accomplishments in the 90's and his willingness to fight are in his favor; Romney's political inauthenticity is a mark against him -- and I hope that a (more) principled conservative like Perry makes a comeback.
But there are good reasons for Newt's rise to frontrunner status, his exuberance for this country being as prominent as his rhetorical skill and his willingness to confront the leftist media.
Newt has the passion and creativity to take on, not just "manage" the cultural and economic catastrophe that his critic Mark Steyn so ably addresses in his books. Check out a defense of Newt's discipline and efficiency during the 90's as he "led" the counter revolution in today's column by Tony Blankley.
I’m glad Newt is a compelling lecturer, unfortunately now Newt is espousing socialist propaganda…such as Mitt Romney is part of the evil 1% because he had to lay people off running his company.
This has become an established trend with Newt, he likes to talk about American exceptionalism but he walks the self appointed demagogue saying anything he thinks will garner him votes walk. I guess that is the way politicians work but considering over the last 4 months Newt has trashed Paul Ryan’s brave attempt at bringing sanity to our fiscal crisis, he’s been outed as a lobbyist for Freddie and Fannie, and now he is spouting anti-capitalist rhetoric at the expense of Mitt, Newt channels more Obama these days then conservative values and principles.
If Newt is the Republican nominee, conservatives will be bitterly disappointed with the results come November 2012.
Romney made a lot of money being a capitalist. So did Newt. Newt offered a service to anyone, public or private, and charged for it. Pure capitalism. Should Fanny & Freddy be out paying for consultants? Probably not, but that is endemic throughout our government. Starving the beast is the only solution.
Romney was a hypocrit when he called out Newt for taking the money. There is no hint of influence peddling, what "influence" did Newt have during the Clinton/Bush/Obama administrations? Newt threw it back at him, in probably not the smoothest challenge possible, but Romney asked for it. They both made money by doing things that will be spun negatively.
And for the record, I was a Newt guy, mainly because he lived Reagan's 11th, but now am leaning Perry. Results matter.......
Glad to see the article and would like to know if you can find a student or two who attended class when President Obama taught law. To my knowledge, not one story has been written about his teaching days, it would be insightful to hear from his former students.
What was Obama's required reading list?...my hunch is not the Federalist Papers nor Alexis de Tocqueville
Upstream--My thinking exactly. I've often wondered why no one has ever come forward and said what a great, inspring teacher Obama was--or even that he was a terrible one. It's as though his teaching career happened in a vacuum somewhere. Also, where are all the articles he should have written while at the Harvard Law Review?
I had already finished graduated studies, but I signed up at the small college to attend the course. It was unusual for a Speaker to take on such a class, and I loved the experience. There is no way the course was inappropriate propaganda -- that charge was such a Freudian slip for the Left, given the number of college courses that suffocate with leftist orthodoxy. There was not a lot of exchange with students, and the superlative tics were all there, but the coursework addressed a neglected and significant question: Why did the America experiment succeed?
I remember coming up to Newt after class and asking his comment to a quip by Herb Stein: "What we need is a constitutional amendment to allow school children to pray for a balanced budget." I was hoping to get at least a smile, but he grimaced and dismissed it as unserious.
The most important takeaway from the Newt experience as his student and his constituent is that he does not lead, he dictates. He does not build cohesive, supportive, effective organizations. He organizes cult worship of a most whimsical him. Most people who have worked with him previously do not support him now. It was remarkable discipline for him to adhere to the Contract with America until he considered the promises delivered -- after that he became a pin ball abandoning one principal to follow another.
Thanks for your interesting insights. You brought out the good and the bad. I think Gingrich's response to the quip was noteworthy. Of course it was unserious; it was a joke. I wonder whether the man has any sense of humor.
"...ALL politicians will disappoint you in some way at some time...?
-- Sarah Palin
"Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
-------------------------------------
Newt certainly has done things worth reading and worth writing....
...and he has done them both, by focusing on my favorite subject...
...The United States of America
As Newt has said before and I'll paraphrase, "..He has written 25 books, 30 year career in politics, a 'real Professor' of History, etc..."
There is NO WAY that you could engineer, after 40 years in the desert, the 1994 Republican House takeover without compromise and shaking hands with "The Devil" (Socialist Democrats).
So long as Newt surrounds him self with those like Jime DeMint, Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, he will be a very effective leader who knows the game called Congress better than anyone out there.
I am a hard core Sarah Palin supporter, but without her in the race, and given the chances of the other candidates and their experiences, it boils down to...the devil you know...Newt..versus the devil you know...Mitt.
I choose Newt as the lesser of two evils, and if he is chosen our candidate you can expect this Fiscal Conservative to do whatever it takes to get him elected in order to throw that idiot commie Obumbles out.
This article is an important counter-balance to the raft of Newt criticism. As much as Romney seems to exhibit steady efficient managerial performance, the one star that seems to remain in it's place in the Newt sky is his consistent positive attitude toward the American experiment. Even corporate executives may conclude that attitude is a more heavily weighted requirement for success than technical proficiency, partly because, while efficient leaders are where you find them, it is even harder to find someone who has the passion for moving in the right direction. We don't expect Newt to come out on top on the means testing of his suggestions. But of his energy and attitude could fuel and be filtered by a competent cabinet and a GOP led congress that may be even better than a Romney administration. His course shows his value. No wonder he's perceived by so many to be more of a core conservative than Romney.
What I like about Newt: He's upbeat, positive. He has been unafraid to Obama to task for his many failings, rather than tear down opponents. I have much respect for that.
What I don't like about Newt: On a purely visceral level: he's old and frumpy looking. He embodies "old Republican". I realize that's rather shallow, but it is what it is. I can't be the only one who thinks this. I am 43. And while I want someone who most definitely has great wisdom and experience, I don't want to vote for someone who looks too old to finish his term. Maybe that's age discrimination on my part, but, again, if I think that, others probably do as well.
I'm willing to look at the candidates with fresh eyes. I want someone who can win! I want someone who can get things of substance done. I want to return my country to conservative principles. I want to know my money is being spent wisely.
I was excited about Cain, because he brought financial wisdom and experience to the table with great candor and charisma.
It is too much to ask to have all of that (non-frumpy, charismatic conservative with solid core principles and great wisdom and experience) into one person? Sadly, it seems to be so.
The advantage of having an old president is that he won't be around for decades after his time in office to make a fool of himself like President Carter does. I already cringe at the thought of BO's comments from the golf course for the next 50 years.
Not really, but his name's Paul Ryan. (And I'm sure there are others.) Somehow we have the field we have though. I'm sure tons of us are so disappointed in Cain. If any of the stories are true, he should never have run (Gingrich's "advantage" is that it became public knowledge years ago). And if they aren't, as Cain says, then it's really very sad.
But what's wrong with Gingrich is more than his frumpiness and that he has a slimy amphibian and the Grinch ion his name. It's that no matter how many conservative things he has said and done, he has done an equal number of crazy liberal things. And while I guess you can sincerely believe in man-made climate change (without even the possibility of scientific evidence?) no sane person would think we can do anything about it, and the conservative position is to make slow changes. Gingrich is not conservative in that sense. He's all for radical change toward whatever passionate goal he holds that morning. And he will get nothing done with the current Republican House. I'm sure he's a great professor and father, but he should not be in this race (and I can't blame him - he has visions of grandeur - I can only blame his supporters).
I'm trying to imagine how one would stream a university lecture over the Internet ... in 1994.
In 1994, I was still using a black & white Mac Classic with a 2400 baud modem.
The first Mosaic web browser had only been released in 1994, Netscape Navigator was still at the 1.0 stage in 1994, and RealNetworks didn't begin streaming video over the Internet until 1997!
Follow
