Last night, my dad told me about a recent interaction with Newt Gingrich during a campaign stop in Beaufort, South Carolina. My dad said he told Gingrich, “I really like your position on immigration.”
Gingrich smiled and replied, “You should, because it’s the right one.”
It is classic Newt Gingrich, and it crystallizes a bit of his appeal to a big chunk of the Republican base.
The election of George W. Bush in 2000 brought “compassionate conservatism” and eight years of a president who was quick to try to find areas of cooperation with Sen. Edward Kennedy in areas like education. He was followed by Sen. John McCain and his “maverick” credentials, cheered on by the press, who adored his campaign-finance law with Russ Feingold and his criticism of Bush on interrogation methods.
Many conservative Republicans are tired of standard-bearers who seem apologetic about their stances. They’re tired of having to reargue the inevitable failures of statist policies, the benefits of free-market economics, the long-term benefits and wisdom of traditional values, the need to respond to threats decisively, and the need for a strong America playing the key role of leadership on the world stage. They want a candidate who will metaphorically grab the inattentive, poorly informed, emotional swing voter by the lapels and say, “Look, whenever our policies are tried, they work; the opposition’s policies crash and burn time and again and all we’re left with is a big bill and a sense that government’s intentions were good. Stop indulging them and embrace what works!”
In the GOP field, the candidate who seems to have confidence seeping out of every pore is Newt. Almost every Gingrich response to every question carries the subtext, “The evidence to support the wisdom and benefits of my idea is so overwhelming and irrefutable that I can scarcely believe that we need to have this discussion, but I will lay it out for you slowly and clearly so that even the dullest-witted person within earshot can grasp the futility and madness of any other course.”
There’s a catch to this style, of course. To those inattentive, poorly informed, emotional swing voters, Gingrich can come across as not merely confident but wildly overconfident in his own ideas and leadership, as well as his arrogance and ego.
Of course, this also explains a portion of conservative Republicans’ reluctance about Mitt Romney. If Newt bristles with overconfidence, the pandering, position shifts, and rhetorical caution of Romney suggests a lack of confidence; many conservatives conclude that the former Massachusetts governor is terrified of telling a primary voter what he doesn’t want to hear. Even when Romney touts a conservative policy, he gets little credit from some GOP primary voters, since they think it’s just another insincere sales pitch. More often than not, Romney emphasizes that he wants to study an issue more or consult with others before declaring a definitive intent, which can be wise in many circumstances but often sounds like a “maybe, so don’t conclude that I disagree with you” hedge on the campaign trail.
In the eyes of the GOP base, their November opponent is perhaps even more confident than Gingrich (in his own mind, he’s already among the top four presidents!) and has won because of his steadfast faith in the transformative power of liberalism. Of course, conservatives are not liberals, and what works for one side is not necessarily what will work for the other. It is not clear that the Republican nominee in 2012 can win by emulating Obama’s style.
I won't attempt to speak for other conservatives, but I very much want a proud, confident, assertive conservative as a candidate.
Romney has that Mormon “let’s not offend anyone” approach to things, which they are so well trained at for their mission trips. Mormons are wonderful people, great neighbors. They’ll help you fix your fence and dig your well and catch your livestock. They don’t make good enemies. Right now, we need a very good enemy [to Obama] and that’s not going to be and never can be Romney.
The Romney-Obama debates will convince everyone that Romney thinks Obama is a great person. That's not what I want to see.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCertainly that air of complete self-assurance has always been an essential part of Gingrich's shtick. That's a huge part of what worked so well in the 80s and 90s, when he was rebranding the House Republicans as insurgents (with himself as commander, of course). He's been using it for his own advantage once again.
I just don't see why you think the people who are put off by Gingrich are the "inattentive, poorly informed, emotional swing voters." Even going by your premises, the logical conclusion should be the opposite. The more you know about him - or the more closely you've followed him over the years - the easier it is to see through his act.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, is Mr. Geraghty suggesting Sen. Thune, Ann Coulter, Sheriff Babeu, Gov. Haley, John Hinderaker, Mr. Ponnuru, Gov. Christie, etc., are merely "inattentive, poorly informed, emotional swing voters"?
Not his best.
If you select a so-called fighter, one who has a vast history of actually enabling the opposition, who was on the payroll of the very same thing you were fighting fix, and you knew you were going to lose, does this reveal you are not really very wise?
Does it reveal a certain form of self destructive obsession? Emotive blindness, destined to make matters far worse?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBehold, a list of stupid questions.
Mercifully, he didn't try to answer them.
Then, we *would* have seen 'emotive blindness, destined to make matters far worse.'
It's always good to hear from an expert in the field.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAwful. Giving Gingrich credit for an unworkable immigration proposal because it flouts the conservative postion of Enforcing the Law is perfect to have with RINO's Bush and McCain. They can't just stick with the conservative position (or Conservatives) because they're too smart for core principles and can't wait to work with the other guys. They're undependable - Bush left the party worse than he found it, McCain would have done the same and Gingrich was also driven from power.
Confidence in positions that feature immigration loopholes, free speech stifling campaign laws that give loopholes to unions and take what used to be a Republican advantage and flip it, and working with Democrats on huge Medicare expansion and solutions to Global Warmi - er, Climate change aren't indicative of confidence as much as arrogance and lack of a core.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUsually a person's greatest gifts are also that same person's greatest weaknesses.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour subtext quote reminds me of exactly how O comes across. This part of Newt is perhaps both a blessing and a curse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHave been with you since the Kerry Spot days and always enjoy reading you.
"To those inattentive, poorly informed, emotional swing voters, Gingrich can come across as not merely confident but wildly overconfident in his own ideas and leadership, as well as his arrogance and ego."
I guess that explains why those voters rejected Obama so overwhelmingly.
Come on, Jim, please. Even in a piece where you analyze conservatives' tendency to be too apologetic in promoting conservatism, you practically end up doing it yourself! What conservatives who are refreshed by Gingrich's certainly see is an electorate that has never been turned off by the towering pride, overweening self-esteem, and pompous self-importance of Obama, the Clintons, Pelosi, Jimmy Carter, and so many other unapologetic leftists. Meanwhile all we on the right ever do is counsel ourselves not to be sell conservatism but to sell conservatism lite or warmed-over liberalism.
You know what? If Newt is the nominee and falls flat on his face selling arrogant, boastful conservatism, I'll still prefer that to yet another cycle of sniveling, excuse-me campaigning by the Republican.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou just admitted that you prefer poisoning the well to drinking normal tap.
Romeny will do a good job. He's not our savior. We need to change hearts and minds in this country before we can imagine to have a leader that fully puts us on the right path to following the constitution, drastically limiting government and truly respecting individual freedoms.
Because you can't get that in one election cycle does not mean you should poison the well we drink from!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmen, baby. I'm not voting for Romney. Ever. He's a squish, and the Washington establishment's boy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut would you prefer it to the alternative?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePatrick you forget Newt has been the conservative salesman before and he was a huge gift to Bill Clinton he came off arrogant and over confident and turned the population against him and for Clinton. Clinton was easy to hate and easy to disrespect yet Newt managed somehow to come off less popular and more toxic than even Clinton...something to keep in mind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseArrogant comes to mind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePatrick J has the right idea.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDuring the last election cycle in 2007, I went to a Romney meeting. A lady asked him a question he could have hemmed and hawed on, but Romney cut straight to the chase. "I won't do that, because I believe in a free economy," he told her. Gingrich doesn't have a monopoly on confidence.
Romney may not be as jovial at the debates, but he doesn't lack confidence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly!!
Thankyou!!!
This is why people are excited about Newt's campaign and couldn't care less about Mitt's.
When people are excited to vote FOR someone, they turn out to vote and that candidate wins.
Romney is an empty suit. No one is excited about what he stands for because no one has the slightest clue what his position is today - and if you suspect what it is, you can be sure it'll change with the next poll. He governed as a Progressive Democrat in MA, no one can say for sure how he'll govern in DC, but we do know he's never accomplished a thing for Conservatism.
Both candidates will get the anti-Obama vote. Only Newt will get the pro-Republican vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAarradin, exactly! Thank YOU!!
I agree whole heartedly. With Net, a chance to FINALLY vote in favor of something! The plans he is proposing will actually help us make things better.
Only Newt will get the pro- .... but , is it "pro-Republican," I wonder? The "Republicans," many of them, have disgraced themselves supporting a go-along "progressive" (Romney's own words) "moderate AND YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS, IT MEANS MORE OF THE SAME.
But Newt will get votes that are pro-Newt's IDEAS AND PROPOSALS.
Anyway, thanks Aarradin, I agree. I would and will vote for Newt when and if I get a chance!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt doesn't pander? You think he came up with his ethanol plank purely on sound policy grounds? Let's face it, both Grindgrinch and Romney flip, flop, and pander, they are, after all politicians and that's what politicians do. It's second nature to them. Romney, however, is the flip flopping panderer without the baggage, the electable one. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah he support ethanol for over 20 years so he could pander in 2011.
Newt's all the above energy policy includes ethanol.
Newt the Total pander bear!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHi - I posted this at about 3:00 this afternoon. It's now after 7 p.m. and it hasn't been posted so I'm going through the posting process again.
Hope Change : 12/23/11 15:26
Really? Really, Jim?
Newt studies problems, comes up with reasonable, sometimes brilliant suggestions for solutions, explains them in detail again to each new audience, so that we ALL really understand, and YOUR contribution is say he acts as if we scarcely need to have this discussion?
Newt's attitude is much closer to: LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I'VE THOUGHT OF, AND LET'S SEE IF YOU AGREE, AND LET'S GET IT DONE TOGETHER IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGREE.
I'm SO FED UP with NRO and the egregiously uniformed commentary. I am ESPECIALLY fed up with the cute superiority and affectation of being above it all.
This is YOUR country, too, Jim. This is YOUR country, NRO editors. YOUR grandchildren will have to live with the results of our decisions today.
I ask you to put in the time and watch Newt's speeches and find out for yourself what Newt is proposing. You obviously don't get it yet. If you understood, you might have specific criticisms, but you wouldn't have this tone of supercilious superiority, IMO.
I can imagine how Newt would say, "You should support it, because it's the right one," and if Newt said that to me, I wouldn't take offense or feel Newt was talking down to me. I would smile and agree, because I think it's a brilliant solution that takes into account basic fairness to the United States and ALSO to the otherwise law-abiding people who came here without legal papers and yet who have built good lives here and who were employed by American employers and whose only crime was wanting to make a better life for themselves and their families, and not being able to do it legally.
(7 pm update: the following is my opinion: The U.S. bears some responsibility for the illegal immigration situation, because we refused to enforce the law or secure the border. So I feel it is fair to send newcomers or criminal types home, and then to make it LEGALLY POSSIBLE to come here and work or go to school, and to give the "red card," which means LEGAL BUT NOT A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP to otherwise law-abiding people who have build good lives here.
Newt is proposing to let the local people decide, as the draft boards did, as juries do; study the matter and decide. This is a brilliant idea.
This idea depends upon the civic virtue of American citizens. I want to see the civic virtue of American citizens be stronger and the idea that Americans are dependent on the federal government get weaker.
I've talked to other avid readers of NRO who had the same response I did to that unsigned editorial you guys wrote the other day, and I've read the more than a thousand, last time I looked, comments to the article. NRO is sinking in many people's estimation, IMO.
Please do the work. Find out what Newt is proposing -- border control, a fair approach to immigration issues, brain research to help with illnesses like Alzheimer's, a Quality-Improvement way to get feedback from the front-lines of life from the American people about how laws are affecting them, ways to make government accountable and transparent in its spending and decision-making --- the list goes on and on -- encourage private companies to explore space, encourage manufacturers to manufacture in the United States, encourage capital to return to the U.S., lower taxes RATES, increase tax REVENUES, reduce regulations, transform burdensome agencies like OSHA and EPA so that they actually help the American people -- what part of these ideas do you not like?
You're working in the dark and I can see it, because I have the internet, and I've watched Newt's speeches. (No to SOPA!!) (7p.m. update: I understand SOPA is dead. How will they try to sneak it through using a czar, agency or regulation, I wonder?)
I spent most of my life eagerly reading the political insider punditry to FIND OUT THE NEWS. Not any more. I can find out the news for myself. That changes the game. You can still be an awesome commentator, but you have to know what you're talking about.
I can see, genuinely, that this sort of disintermediation might be really challenging for the opinion writers and news people. After all, it's true for us all that you don't know what you don't know. Every day, another chance to not know what you're talking about.
And that's my point. I know what Newt is proposing, because I've watched Newt's speeches. The writers at NRO apparently haven't. Because the criticisms all seem to be about the past, and style, and perception, and who will be unable to "get it," and not about what Newt is actually proposing.
Please watch, think, and decide if you can support Newt's ideas. Because if we, the American people, can do it, it will be SO AWESOME. I'm really into it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse