In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich. “I worked with President Reagan to change things in Washington,” “we helped defeat the Soviet empire,” and “I helped lead the effort to defeat Communism in the Congress” are typical claims by the former speaker of the House.
The claims are misleading at best. As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.
Advertisement
The fights over Reagan’s efforts to stop Soviet expansionism in the Third World were exceptionally bitter. The battlegrounds ranged from Angola and Grenada to Afghanistan and Central America. Reagan’s top team — William Casey at CIA, Cap Weinberger at DOD, and George Shultz at State — understood as he did that if Soviet expansionism could be dealt some tough blows, not only the Soviet empire but the USSR itself would face a political, technological, and financial challenge it could not meet. Few officials besides Ronald Reagan predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union entirely, but every one of us in positions of authority understood the importance of this struggle.
But the most bitter battleground was often in Congress. Here at home, we faced vicious criticism from leading Democrats — Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Jim Wright, Tip O’Neill, and many more — who used every trick in the book to stop Reagan by denying authorities and funds to these efforts. On whom did we rely up on Capitol Hill? There were many stalwarts: Henry Hyde, elected in 1974; Dick Cheney, elected in 1978, the same year as Gingrich; Dan Burton and Connie Mack, elected in 1982; and Tom DeLay, elected in 1984, were among the leaders.
But not Newt Gingrich. He voted with the caucus, but his words should be remembered, for at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.
The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”
As someone who was accused and indicted on the Iran-Contra deal you gave good advice to Reagan (lol). Give me a break. This endless neocon attack on Gingrich who was right to call this out in Congress is more evidence that you are as desperate as the Dems to sink his nomination. Hubris and stupidity may give you traction but my money is on the rank and file who want change; a solvent Republic, sound money, a tax plan that is flat and fair, and a federal government that does what it supposed to--get out of the way of the People. Go back to the Council of Foreign Relations where you so deservedly reside.
I notice you fail to address any of the substantive remarks made by Mr. Abrams in his article, instead resorting to the usual lazy ad hominems and populist BS in your venomous attack. I thought we on the right were supposed to be guided by reason, not emotions.
Boolean, read Jeffrey Lord's "Reagan's Lieutenant" over at the America Spectator. When you evaluate that against Mr. Abrams, one of Jim Baker's inner circle, this anti-Newt propoganda falls right into place. Bob Dole, Bush 41, Jim Baker, and legions of other RINO squishes are still holding a 30-year old grudge over Newt fighting moderates off of Reagan's coattails. Additionally, they've still never forgiven Newt for subverting Bush 41's biggest tax increase proposals in the early 1990's. That Newt is simultaneously winning massive support from real working folks while inside-the-beltway Republicans are drawing out their most venomous anti-Newt rhetoric is no coinsidence at all. All you have to do is go back over all the old rivalries in Reagan's White House to understand where this anti-Newt fury is coming from.
Nail meets head. Probably the best summary of what really went down during that time. John Sununu as well. He has been leading the attack on Gingrich because he went against his former boss's (Bush Sr.) tax hikes. It's so blatant as to what's going on here.
We had a "team player" for most of the last decade, and where did it get us? Budget increases, mounting debt, "bail outs", a crippled economy, and a shellacking in 2006. The 2006 elections were a product of the GOP moving to the center-left.
This is a shockingly ignorant statement, evidently by someone who has never led anything in their life.
The best leaders are ALWAYS the best team players who understand that leaders accomplish nothing without a team of followers on whom he/she must rely to execute on a goal.
Any time I ever read or listen to someone talking about leadership as if it is some rah-rah do-what-I-tell-you thing, I immediately conclude that it is a path to nonsense.
Unfortunately, you are exactly right. If Newt ever gets into another position of actual political power, he can be counted on to advance his own interests at our expense.
With Newt, you get the whole Clinton/Lewisky thing replayed--and recall how badly Republicans lost at the end of it all, plus you get Pelosi pointing out the many ugly details from the public Ethics report. This will awaken the liberal voters who have been peeved with Obama for not having done enough social engineering and would have remained quiet in November had Newt not awakened them. You then have them coming out in droves to vote specifically against this morally-devoid, big-government narcissist. And the end result will be: the very social engineering you were trying to avoid.
I don't want a team player in a President. I want a leader; and Newt Gingrich is eons beyond Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, John Sununu and countless other rank and file Republicans who only want to lead on the margin to protect control of taxpayer money.
Rank and file Republicans don't want a vast majority. They only want to settle for "enough" to maintain majorities.
Mr. Gingrich wants to get the rank and file deadwood out of his way. It's a mighty struggle that is worth the effort.
The "Mitt fix" is in danger. This thing was supposed to be wrapped up by now. The elites inside-the-beltway crowd, has been-politicians, punditocracy, along w/the GOP-establishment are having a "meltdown" over Newt or ANYONE that gets in the way of McRomney being crowned the nominee. ;-)
Are you really that dim witted not to see through this guy and his words. If you were paying attention to the GOP race you would know that he is a failed leader who couldn't even lead his own party and voted out as speaker by 86%! What makes you think he can run this country and be a great leader, all he is a big talker but there is no substance to what the guy says, time and time again he is found lying and is the BIGGEST hypocrite i have ever seen. He is quoted as saying it doesn't matter what i do just what i say. Tell me why you think newt would be a good leader and deserves to be president?
derek sc says, "If you were paying attention to the GOP race you would know that he is a failed leader who couldn't even lead his own party and voted out as speaker by 86%!"
Derek, had you been paying attention to history, you would know that Gingrich did not get voted out of his Majority Leadership, nor did he resign. He finished his term. Read the letter that Bob Dole wrote trashing Newt to verify my claim.
May I suggest that if you are going to take the tone of authority, have your facts straight. Newt Gingrich, with all of his flaws, was a victim of a character assassination by a lot of bitterly jealous and powerful people on the left and right. Recognizing that would be a first step in the right direction.
