What an odd pair of front runners Republicans appear to have ended up with. Not the usual conservative vs. moderate pairing, but two quite unusual political figures with remarkably similar policy and political profiles but remarkably different temperaments and dispositions.
Let me say first: I used to work for Newt Gingrich. In the last year of his speakership, I was a “staff assistant” in his congressional office. I was 21 when I started there. No offense to anyone reading this who is now a staff assistant on the Hill, but that’s a very junior job—or at least it certainly was in my case: some policy research, some note-taking in meetings, some answering of phones, and the like. I didn’t spend all that much time with Gingrich (when I did, he was always very nice to me and to other junior staffers), and I don’t pretend to have learned much about him that you wouldn’t have learned from just following politics. So I offer my views as an observer of politics, not as any kind of expert on Gingrich.
What stands out about Romney and Gingrich, to me, is that they have in common a very unusual profile for a Republican politician. Both of them are fundamentally moderates: Very wonky Rockefeller Republicans who moved to the right over time as their party moved right and maybe as events persuaded them to move right, and they both still very much exhibit the technocratic countenance of the Rockefeller Republican—a program for every problem. Conservative humility about human nature and about the potential of technical solutions is not readily discernible in either one.
They’re also essentially in the same place politically—I can’t think of a single major issue on which Gingrich is more conservative than Romney, and with the possible exception of immigration (and perhaps Medicare reform, as I mention
here, though it’s hard to be sure) I can’t think of one where Romney is more conservative. Substantively, their views are largely indistinguishable from one another. They’re part of a very broad consensus on policy among Republicans this year, which is one of the underreported stories of the year and is frankly in many ways a testament to Paul Ryan, who really defined the Republican agenda with his budget. The House Republican budget caused both Romney and Gingrich to take significantly more conservative positions on entitlement reform in particular than either one would otherwise have taken.
Moreover, both of them have moved back and forth on the same key issues in recent years—on health care, on climate, on immigration, on the social issues including the life issues; and these are obviously some of the most important issues to Republican voters. So the question of flip-flops, or the question of reliability, hangs heavy over both of them.
And yet, similar as they are, you don’t naturally think of them as belonging in the same category, because they have very different temperaments, and temperament can often matter even more than substance. Romney has a thoroughly executive disposition: He appears to have a very organized mind, intense discipline, a general sense of calm and restraint, and a systematic approach to everything he does. He expects change to result from a process, and so thinks about politics in terms of process. He exhibits each of these qualities to a fault—and as a result he can often seem rather cold, and his past flip-flops can seem even more unprincipled.
Gingrich has what you might call a revolutionary disposition: He has great intensity and energy. His mind is drawn to stark and diametrical distinctions; he expects change to occur through cataclysmic clashes and so seems always to be seeking after ways to accelerate the contradictions. This allows him to much more easily thunder over his own inconsistencies and past changes of mind. But he has no discipline whatsoever, can be almost unbelievably erratic and unfocused, and is unironically conceited.
I think Gingrich has the intensity and the understanding of the importance of the moment that many Republican voters are looking for—he radiates a sense that the choice before us is utterly crucial and decisive (even if one sometimes gets the impression that he would radiate the same sense when asked to choose between paper and plastic), and with regard to the coming election a lot of Republicans share that sense. I certainly do. He also of course has a record in high office that includes some impressive accomplishments during his speakership—welfare reform, the balanced budget—though also some
very costly failures that seemed to flow from deficiencies in his temperament or his style of management.
And that’s where I think Romney has some advantages. The presidency is an executive position—for all the political elements of the job, which are obviously very important, the presidency is fundamentally a matter of making decisions and seeing to it that they are carried out: A president has to be a decisive, focused, prudent, disciplined person, who knows what he wants and how to use the power he has to achieve it. Romney’s record on that front is very impressive.
Mental and organizational discipline is also very important in a candidate, not just in a president, and it certainly seems like Romney is better positioned to run a focused and effective campaign. Gingrich is likely to run a much more frenetic campaign—remember, that story about his senior team resigning in a huff and accusing him of lacking focus is not from fifteen years ago, it happened in June of this year. Frenetic campaigns tend to turn voters off, as John McCain learned in the fall of 2008, and I think it’s important for Republicans to understand that this fall they must appeal to independent voters with a terrible case of buyer’s remorse about Obama: Those people don’t think they voted for a socialist revolutionary last time, they think they voted for a charismatic politician who turned out to be much more liberal and much less competent than they bargained for. They are ready for someone else, but they want to be sure he is up to the job.
In a sense, then, the choice before Republican voters is a choice of two temperaments. And they must ask themselves not only which best speaks to their mood, but also which is likely to best serve the right in a general election and to best serve the country in the White House. The policy agenda of a President Romney and a President Gingrich would likely be very similar—especially if a Republican congress is elected with him. But whether that agenda or the next chapter of the Obama agenda is what we must contend with in 2013 will depend on whether Republican voters discern just how substantively similar their two leading candidates are, and just how temperamentally different they are.
What a thoughtful and insightful post, Mr. Levin.
Very nice.
My favorite line: "he radiates a sense that the choice before us is utterly crucial and decisive (even if one sometimes gets the impression that he would radiate the same sense when asked to choose between paper and plastic)".
Absolutely spot on!
Newt needs to be the brightest burning candle in the room at all times. His goal is always to be seen as the brightest burning candle. I think Romney's is to accomplish what he has come to at the end of a decision process (I think you're spot on about the process part regarding Romney).
Your post was very nicely put.
Who do you want for president: the calm, disciplined, organized, fcoused, methodical leader?
Or the bright burning (and just as fast to be extinguished or to set a wild fire), loose cannon, undiscipined, who thinks that that the presidency needs nothing but his own innate and intuitive brilliance?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI also got such a laugh out of that line that I had to read it to someone.
The article makes a very compelling argument, I agree. On the other hand, Newt seems to have the big ideas and the passion that dramatic change requires, while Romney seems to be likely to be an incrementalist.
Like a suit of clothes, the candidate's image needs to match not only the occasion, but also the candidate himself. The Speaker is wearing the image of "New Newt," a remade man with greater maturity, and it seems to fit him well.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYuval,
Thanks for a fair and concise explanation of why Mitt Romney would make a better president than Newt Gingrich.
We're attempting to elect an executive like Romney not a bomb-throwing backbencher like Gingrich.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know you Yuval, but I wish that I could force every GOP primary voter to read this assessment. Even though it does not answer the big question.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell said, Dr. Levin. I just wish there were a very conservative, well-spoken, and managerially competent candidate out there who could appeal to moderates. The good traits aren't all in 1 perfect candidate, but spread among the field.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell said, well put.
The issue of Newt being "intensity and the understanding of the importance of the moment that many Republican voters are looking for", ignores the hype and favor for Bachamann, Perry, Cain, even Trump just weeks prior.
Newt is not the 'fire brand' many seek, just a terrible desperate selection made by those stuck with a misguided bias against the sound Private Sector Product in Romney. The fashionable push for the purist or the ideal has been exposed with the absurd Gingrich hype.
The choice is vastly different in this sense, Gingrich is a very tired Beltway Icon who is deeply embedded in the Washington Swamp. Just like McCain, Gingrich is an Icon of the Washington Political malaise - even raking in 1.8 Million via Fannie and Freddie. He is doomed to fail in the National Election.
It isn't so much a matter of debating his weak Presidential potential, Newt Gingrich will never get there, giving the Democratic Party the biggest gift one can imagine.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOld Fan - do the Romney folks pay extra for all the capital letters?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey are both losers. So do we choose the steady loser or the frantic loser?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseyou RINO!
Actually I think you do a very good job comparing and contrasting the two. This is a choice between two Reagan Republicans. It is a choice between two very similar people in a lot of ways but differ most strikingly in their temperament. Romney has the right temperament for a President and a Presidential candidate. Gingrich does not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis isn't a choice between to Reagan Republicans, or one Reagan Republican and one Rockefeller Republican.
That is what I meant to say.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't you wish they'd let us edit our comments?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseyes
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you for pointing out how valuable Ryan is in his present position. Many seem to feel that he let us down in not running for president. Ultimately, he, in his present position, may be the one with the most power to correct our financial mess. He is a fine, inspiring man with good values who is willing to do the hard work of drafting legislation. I am glad he didn't not make an egotistical jump into this flavor of the month campaign. I suspect that in 4 or 8 years, few will dare challenge him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe let me down when he supported the supercommittee.
That was after the "bold" 60-year budget balancing plan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith all due respect, Yuval (and my compliments on a nice article about Constitutional Conservatism), I somewhat disagree on some of the nuance and big picture differences between the two. On big picture issues, Gingrich has been much more reliably conservative on social issues, personal baggage notwithstanding. There are things here and there that people can critique about his pro-life voting record, but he's been consistently pro-life over the course of many years in public life. Romney's conversion came without explanation prior to his previous run for president. When you stack up Newt's accomplishments in Congress and as Speaker specifically, he helped accomplish some major policy objectives of the Right: welfare reform. tax cuts, balanced budgets, just among those that passed. He also passed other parts of the Contract with America that got killed after they left the House. The problem from Mitt is that Newt's accomplishments in Congress, even taking his failures into account, dwarf Mitt's in terms of conservatism and importance.
In terms of nuance, while the temperment is different, I'd argue that no matter how flighty Newt is, he is the only one that has had the astute political acumen to gauge what the Tea Party and conservative voters want - what drove even Donald Trump to 18% in the polls at one point - a candidate who will articulately and assertively defend the conservative position on the issues that matter most. Mitt hasn't really done either of these.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNews flash, there are three front runners.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNews flash:
Kooks make for good tv, but stand no chance outside of IA or NH.
So, no, only two front runners.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Han Solo,
Right on!
The fact that politicos, pundits, and, especially the media (ppm, including NRO) ignore the third front runner is a huge plus for Ron Paul.
The ppm are responsible for conning Americans into believing we always must choose between the lesser of two evils--the lesser of two recipients of donations from Monsanto, Pfizer, Con Agra, etc.
The ppm, including NRO, are almost as guilty as Congress in flushing this country down.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Conservative humility about human nature and about the potential of technical solutions is not readily discernible in either one."
What a bogus claim anyway.
First of all, this is an arrogant claim. It isn't a humble claim. Knowledge is actually more complicated than that. We can know an awful lot about some things and yet have huge gaping holes in our knowledge in some areas. The idea that conservatives actually have enough knowledge about knowledge to make this sort of sweeping statement is itself very much lacking in humility. The world is a more complicated place than this simplistic reductionist assertion.
Second of all, inaction (the preferred conservative policy choice for everything except for when it comes to military action) is a decision with consequences. What if every surgeon decided that they should never operate on patients, because the body is a massively complex, and we will perhaps never fully understand it? Would the inaction of never performing surgery always benefit the patient? Is it particularly "humble" to decide that no should ever receive surgery, because YOU have determined that because the body is complex, surgery would never help?
Of course, as has been alluded to earlier, conservatives are not even consistent in their embrace of humility as inaction. They are always pushing for our country to go to war or engage in military action against other countries.
If conservatives took half of the problem solving determination that they exhibit in making war on other countries and applied it domestically, this country could accomplish great things. But instead, what we get is this fake humility, which is always an excuse to not do anything to solve problems.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGoodness gracious. Read the Heritage Foundation. Read National Review (not just the Corner). Read American Thinker, and on and on. While you're at it, read our founding documents. Conservatives are constantly talking about problem solving. They understand the falabilities of human nature, and how the supposed good intentions of the left end up doing more harm, usually. Conservatives are focused on results, not just the good intentions. To say conservatives don't care about anything other than waging war on other countries is just not very substantive. Sorry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse