A hard-fought presidential primary campaign is obscuring the uncharacteristic degree of unity within the Republican party. It has reached a conservative consensus on most of the pressing issues of the day. All of the leading candidates, and almost all of the lagging ones, support the right to life. All of them favor the repeal of Obamacare. Most of them support reforms to restrain the growth of entitlement spending. All of them favor reducing the corporate tax rate to levels that will make the U.S. a competitive location for investment. Almost all of them seem to understand the dangers of a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, and of a defense policy driven by the need to protect social spending rather than the national interest. Conservatives may disagree among themselves about which candidate most deserves support, but all of us should take heart in this development — and none of us should exaggerate the programmatic differences within the field.
Just as heartening, the White House seems winnable next year, and with it a majority in both houses of Congress, so that much of this conservative consensus could actually become law. A conservative majority on the Supreme Court, a halt to the march of regulation, free-market health-care policies: All of them seem within our grasp. But none of them is assured, and the costs of failure — either a failure to win the election, or a failure to govern competently and purposefully afterward — are as large as the opportunity.
Advertisement
We fear that to nominate former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the frontrunner in the polls, would be to blow this opportunity. We say that mindful of his opponents’ imperfections — and of his own virtues, which have been on display during his amazing comeback. Very few people with a personal history like his — two divorces, two marriages to former mistresses — have ever tried running for president. Gingrich himself has never run for a statewide office, let alone a national one, and has not run for anything since 1998. That year he was kicked out by his colleagues, the most conservative ones especially, who had lost confidence in him. During his time as Speaker, he was one of the most unpopular figures in public life. Just a few months ago his campaign seemed dead after a series of gaffes and resignations. That Gingrich now tops the polls is a tribute to his perseverance, and to Republicans’ admiration for his intellectual fecundity.
Both qualities served conservatives well in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when Gingrich, nearly alone, saw the potential for a Republican takeover of Congress and worked tirelessly to bring it about. Even before the takeover, Gingrich helped to solidify the party’s opposition to tax increases and helped to defeat the Clinton health-care plan. The victory of 1994 enabled the passage of welfare reform, the most successful social policy of recent decades.
Gingrich’s colleagues were, however, right to bring his tenure to an end. His character flaws — his impulsiveness, his grandiosity, his weakness for half-baked (and not especially conservative) ideas — made him a poor Speaker of the House. Again and again he combined incendiary rhetoric with irresolute action, bringing Republicans all the political costs of a hardline position without actually taking one. Again and again he put his own interests above those of the causes he championed in public.
"Paul’s recent re-dabbling in vile conspiracy theories about September 11 are a reminder that the excesses of the movement he leads are actually its essence."
I laughed when I had this. Ron Paul's position on 09/11 is that we were attacked by terrorists. He does not blame America, and he has said that explicitly. The CIA, and those who would do us harm, believes our government's failed and aggressive policies CONTRIBUTED to the attack. How can anyone in his right mind think that occupying countries and building bases in foreign countries can do anything but make the local populations uneasy. Can we get past the propoganda and realize that these actions, were they done by say China in the US, would anger us?
Laugh all you want. Paul has flirted with 9/11 Truthers a LOT. In interviews I've personally seen, he's refused to condemn the most fringe elements of his support or even their most fringe ideas when directly confronted about them.
I'm not a Gingrich supporter by any means, and I have a lot of problems with him, many of which have been listed here, but I don't think it's a good idea for The Editors to be doing this this early in the race. At least wait until the primaries.
My safe hiding place of rationality has just become a mouthpiece for Rhinos. Why don't you go ahead and just endorse Obama for a 3rd term? How can you be so anti-Newt? He's the reason that all this candidates agree, he is the architect of the modern republican party and of the post Reagan conservative movement. My favorite magazine sounds like all the Chamberlinites screaming about Churchill. To quote Rep. Ryan "with friends like these, who needs the left?"
Hmmm, I heard only a snippet of Rush today and yesterday, but he seemed to be saying that Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry are the only conservatives left. For Mark Levin, it's down to Bachmann and Santorum.
Hannity, on the other hand, won't hear a word against Gingrich. He's your man.
Romney's comments about Obamacare (that its flaw is in its execution, not in the nationalization of healthcare per se) are disqualifying-- and that's before we get to the rest of his opinions. It's hard to take his new-found conservative faith seriously.
That aside, the rest of this article is very well-said. Let's remember, though, that Obama is going for the groin-punch early and often; with the media's help, he'll make his race against ANY candidate a referendum on his opponent rather than his own record.
Usually, various news and opinion outlets tell us who they endorse, not who they oppose. I have to believe that the editors at NR, mindful of their lack of street cred with the conservative base, have chosen to endorse Gingrich by openly opposing him. It is a brilliant move and I commend the highly erudite editors for recognizing that conservatives are in a mood to make up their own mind without the help of professionals.
Therefore, having read between the lines and through the code words (liberals are right, we really do speak in code words), I agree and will also, like NR, throw my support behind the former speaker and future president, Newt Gingrich.
Well once again, NR shows just how much in the tank you guys are for Romney. Seriously, get a grip. Gingrich has the ideas and plans that can help this country succeed again and you're bound and determined to tell us how awful he is and see how many times you can kiss Mitt's behind. I'm not voting for Romney. You go ahead and do so and you ARE helping Obama get another term.
"Paul’s recent re-dabbling in vile conspiracy theories about September 11 are a reminder that the excesses of the movement he leads are actually its essence."
Please provide evidence of this libellous BS. Ron Paul supporters are Constitutionalists, not conspiracy theorists.
Wow..what a surprise! Yes..let's let the candidates continue to make their case...except for Newt. Nah...we don't need to hear anymore from the him...we can already cast him aside.
So, here are are again...the Establishment telling us, the unwashed masses, who we are allowed to still consider. Thanks But No Thanks NRO.....somehow I will find a way to continue to think for myself, listen to all the candidates and vote accordingly.
Why does NR suggest taking another look at Huntsman, but still ignores another well-regarded former Governor, Gary Johnson? And is Santorum really the answer in an election year when voters are focused on the economy? Putting a hard core social conservative up against Obama gives the Democrats a wedge to keep independents away from the GOP. And if executive experience counts, then none of them are as qualified as Gary Johnson. And you don't think Ron Paul deserves to be listed among the candidates who deserve another look? This is absurd.
I agree that Newt is a bad idea, but I strongly disagree with the list of proposed alternatives. Leaving Ron Paul and Gary Johnson out of this list, but including Santorum, makes no sense whatsoever.
I think it makes perfect sense to exclude Johnson and Paul. His executive experience aside, Gary Johnson never was, is not, and never will be a serious national standard bearer for the conservative movement. As for Dr. Paul, while many of his libertarian leanings may be attractive to some on the right, no one who takes isolationism to the head-in-sand extremes he does should ever be allowed anywhere near the levers of geopolitical power.
