Glad Ramesh has joined the issue, which I hoped for in choosing for my lede his criticism from among the widely available smackdowns. I don’t think the Alan Keyes comparison works very well though, because, let’s face it, Keyes never really accomplished much beyond a couple of low level appointments, while Newt’s relentless drive to create the conditions for a GOP House majority for more than 15 years counts as a considerable achievement. Maybe it happens without Newt — I know the politico-demographic argument — but surely he shaped its character in important ways.
In his last paragraph, Ramesh picks up, perhaps not as explicitly as I hoped readers would, the question for everyone about whether the current crisis rises to the level of requiring someone as potentially radical and unpredictable as Newt, or whether Romney’s steadier characteristics are better calibrated for what needs to be done. I don’t see how, as several commenters on Ramesh’s thread say, this is an attack on Romney. Rather, to be perfectly transparent here, my entire article is intended as an open letter to Newt for what he needs to do to persuade us that he is indeed the right person for the moment; in other words, he needs to explain the moment, and explain himself, beyond his capacity for notable one-liners and attacks on the media in the debates. Readers who think my article tries to settle that question are reading into it their own preferences or animosities.
If it will make Ramesh or others feel any better, by the way, I could do a piece on how Newt has the Lincoln-Douglas debates all wrong, but that is entirely peripheral to the larger questions of the election cycle.
As to Ramesh’s challenge, did Churchill ever take $1.6 million to side with the enemy, well, if I adopt the rather latitudinarian understanding of “enemy” Ramesh deploys here, I believe the answer is actually yes. First, as chancellor of the exchequer in the 1920s, Churchill consistently sought to cut defense spending, and also expressed support for appeasement, saying on many occasions that Germany had been mistreated at Versailles. In other words, when Churchill was attacking appeasement and calling for more defense spending in the 1930s, he was assailing policies that he himself had helped set in motion. Yes, circumstances had changed; in this regard, everyone should read Churchill’s essay “Consistency in Politics” and the complete rebuttal to Ramesh’s premise.
There’s more. As to literally “siding with the enemy,” Pat Buchanan likes to quote Churchill’s essay on Hitler from Great Contemporaries, where Churchill expresses his “admiration for the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled [Hitler] to challenge, defy, conciliate, or overcome, all the authorities or resistances which barred his path,” and how Hitler would “restore Germany to the height of her power in Europe” and “cure the cruel unemployment that afflicted the people.” He even sounded a note of optimism, writing that “[History] is replete with examples of men who have risen to power by employing stern, grim, and even frightful methods but who, nevertheless, when their life is revealed as a whole, have been regarded as great figures whose lives have enriched the story of mankind. So may it be with Hitler. . . We may yet to live to see Hitler a gentler figure in a happier age.”
This was written in 1935, and he changed his mind, of course. (Buchanan, naturally, quotes it all out of context, and omits the rest of the story. And if Pat were running again this year, we’d need to point that out.)
Finally, while it isn’t the same as Newt’s dalliance with Freddie Mac, in 1938 an Austrian-born banker and industrialist, Sir Edward Strakosch, bailed out Churchill’s considerable debts when WSC was facing imminent bankruptcy and the possibility of having to leave office entirely. Today this would be an ethical violation of the first order both here and in the U.K.
"In his last paragraph, Ramesh picks up, perhaps not as explicitly as I hoped readers would, the question for everyone about whether the current crisis rises to the level of requiring someone as potentially radical and unpredictable as Newt, or whether Romney’s steadier characteristics are better calibrated for what needs to be done."
Hey, *I* picked up on it!
Romney is steady, even boring. He's compound interest.
Newt is chaotic, even exciting. He's casino gambling.
You make money in the bank, but you may not make enough to pay the bills. You can make LOTS of money in a casino... or you could lose it all.
What "moment" are we in? Are we in a moment that calls for a savings account, or a roll of the dice?
If all we want to do is get Obama out of office, then Romney may be our man.
Unfortunately, getting Obama out of office is a necessary but INSUFFICIENT act. Meaning, Obama *exacerbated* America's problems, he didn't invent them. Even if we returned America to the way it was on the day Obama was elected, we're still in deep trouble because of all the problems that previous politicians like Bush 43 and Clinton ignored.
Which means that the ostensible "safe" choice-- Mitt Romney-- may not be the safe choice at all. We would walk a little slower to the graveyard, but our destination would not change.
Gingrich, for all his faults, has something Romney doesn't have: demonstrable upside. Gingrich *has* had notable conservative achievements. They were a long time ago, and he spent a lot of time in the wilderness, but it's possible he learned from his mistakes.
As you noted in your piece, greatness is often only identifiable in hindsight. Men and women can be *groomed* for greatness, but pedigree is rarely predictive in that regard.
Anyway, I'm unsure if this is a great choice. To borrow another analogy, the GOP electorate wants Aaron Rodgers as their leader, but instead they're faced with boring game-manager Joe Flacco versus hated interception-machine gunslinger Brett Favre. You wouldn't expect Flacco to make mistakes, he's surrounded by a good team, but we all know Favre can take you to the Super Bowl, he's been there, he has the ring and scars to show it.
Newt is Brett Favre... do we give the old, flawed gunslinger one more chance?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's a flaw in your analogy.
Romney isn't the steady, but unspectacular Joe Flacco - a humble underdog from FCS Delaware.
Romney is New York Jets QB Mark Sanchez - a glitzy, telegenic, East Coast media-hyped and under-talented oaf with great hair and limited intelligence who had all the benefits of privelege as a glitzy, telegenic, West Coast media-hyped and under-talented oaf with great hair who attended football factory USC.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm confused. Is Ron Paul Tebow?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNah, Ron Paul is Ron Paul.
Sarah Palin is Tebow.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGiven the likelihood that Newt has texted his junk to more than a few women in his time, I think your analogy works better than you intended.
Let's do this:
Perry = Vince Young: native Texan who entered the league with great hype and expectations, only to flop spectacularly
Santorum = Jay Cutler: has talent but can't stop
whining.
Huntsman = Philip Rivers: great on paper but can't win anything
Bachmann = Tony Romo: has talent but too erratic and can't be trusted with the game on the line
Paul = Tim Tebow: unorthodox yet strangely effective
Cain = Ben Roethlisberger: behaviorally challenged
Pawlenty =
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you want "Super Bowls", it was Romney, NOT Gingrich, who "turned around" failed entities in both the private & public sectors, created businesses/jobs, produced profits & balanced budgets--i.e., Bain & Company, Bain Capital (35 billion assets), Olympics, and in Blue State Massachusetts.
Gingrich's "conservative" legacy was a fleeting & hallow victory that has no connection to reality. What you conveniently omit is Gingrich's real time record since being booted from office by his own party 14 years ago.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince you mention Bain Capital, one might note that part of Romney's legacy is that the executives at Bain are now greater donors to Democrats than to Republicans. Where ever he goes, Romney leaves behind entities that contribute to bigger government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Rather, to be perfectly transparent here, my entire article is intended as an open letter to Newt for what he needs to do to persuade us that he is indeed the right person for the moment; in other words, he needs to explain the moment, and explain himself, beyond his capacity for notable one-liners and attacks on the media in the debates."
Using your Churchill analogy, it seems that Churchill wasn't able to explain himself to his attackers and doubters. The explanation came in the doing after gaining power. Are you asking of Newt what Churchill couldn't do?
This reminds me of Victor Davis Hanson's _The Soul of Battle_ pointing out how three great military leaders (Epaminondas, Sherman and Patton) who were brilliant in times of crisis were difficult to live with in more stable, peaceful times.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's funny how an Establishment RINO-in-the-making like Ramesh forgets that when the GOP needed somebody to try to derail Obama's bid for a Senate seat, it was Alan Keyes who answered the call. No RINO could be found to run the risk to their ambitions. Keyes did his duty.
But then, it's always the conservatives who do the heavy lifting in the Republican Party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn response to your last line:
That's because moderate Republicans don't really want to solve ANYTHING.
They're just titillated by the in-depth analytical discussion that politics can foster.
It's a thought experiment to them:
"Let's see: If I actually cared what happens to the country, what policies would work to secure its blessings?" They're just exercising their intellects.
I'd advise them, and I bet you would, too, that bending one's legs profusely while doing push-ups doesn't really exercise a thing, except for one's wrist joints, which was not really the point of getting involved in the first place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRINOs don't elect politicians to do something, but rather to be something.
They never have an answer as to what precisely Mitt Romney would do differently than Obama if elected because they don't care----it's enough that "Their Guy" won, with whatever access, prestige, and patronage that entails.
Indeed, they more vigorously oppose conservative candidates within their own party than liberals in the other, for the very good reason that they are liberals themselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChurchill? More like the Bug from Men in Black. He's wearing his Newt suit, and saying all the right things, but underneath that ill fitting suit he's very obviously an alien from a hostile planet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo problem reminding people that Pat Buchanan likes to lavish praise on Hitler, circa the 21st century, with hindsight being 20/20 and 60 years to reflect on Hitler's life.
Especially no problem doing this in the context of the 2012 elections, since over 1/2 of the Buchanan Brigades have become Paul Bearers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere is the relevance that Churchill was financially bailed out by his friend Henrey Strakosch?
Churchill didn't break laws or lie to obstruct justice as did Gingrich before he was thrown out of the House leadership by his own party.
Churchill didn't cut & run from elected office in disgrace.
Cgurchill wasn't a serial adulterer who divorced two sick wives to take off with his mistresses.
Churchill didn't pocket millions promoting the opposition's political doctrines tanking his nation's economy.
Churchill didn't demand that like political insiders return their "special interest" dollars and go to jail.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, you're not so good on Churchilliana.
Churchill did in effect "cut & run" from elected office in disgrace following the Dardanelles. To his credit, he made amends by serving in the trenches--but bear in mind his original thought was to do so as a general, not a lieutenant colonel.
Churchill wasn't an adulterer but he also had a track record of publicly shafting people in his way within his own party. He was certainly a social climber, using his mother in bold fashion to help make his name. He was also a dissembler---he intended not just to make history, but to shape it and make certain its verdict of him was positive.
Churchill pocketed lots of money for lots of things, some of which made him many enemies. He ran up lots of debts and drove his family to despair at times as a result, then had to write his way out of it, often in less than savory ways as viewed by contemporaries. He was also a fair sponger---his friendship with Ari Onassis being just one example.
Churchill also boldy volte-faced on any number of issues, crossing the aisle in the Commons not once but twice, something almost unheard of.
And Churchill's condemnation of others went well beyond requests "special interest" dollars be returned---he could be very brutal and quite hypocritical.
Read Gilbert's biography.
The point is that there are indeed points of comparison between the great man and Gingrich---including in some of their flaws.
Mitt Romney has next to nothing in common with Churchill.
That should give us great pause as a president cut from Churchill's cloth is precisely what we need. Romney's a Chamberlain or perhaps a Baldwin and no match even for Anthony Eden, much less Adolf Hitler.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChurchill had flaws common to most?
So what?
To reinterate--
Unlike Gingrich, Churchill wasn't booted from high office convicted by his peers of breaking laws, lying to obstrct justice, & sanctioned an unprecedented $300,000.
Gingrich wasn't a serial adulrerer who abandoned two gravely ill wives for his mistreses.
Ditto, Churchill fought in the trenches after the Dardanelles. He didn't spend years prior to becoming Prime Minister making millions as an operative/conduit promoting his political opposition's disastrous policies tanking his nation's economy.
Nor did Churchill lie to the public about his ties to said "special interest" & demand that his mirror images return their ill gotten gains & go to jail.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is Gingrich, NOT Romney, who for the last ten years has advocated in words & deeds "appeasement" with the Pelosi, Hillary, Al Sharpton, & Freddie Mac Big Gov't progressive agenda enemy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSteve, I read the article with great interest. It has been apparent for sometime that the approaching election will be quite unlike any we've held in a very long while ... if ever.
Newt could not, in a traditional election cycle, hope to gain any traction at any time. In this election cycle, however, animated by extraordinary dynamics an unconventional candidate cannot only win but, more to the point, may be precisely what is demanded.
A revolutionary who not only possesses vision but it somehow possessed of it, thinks creatively (erratically?) and can drive progress swiftly is sometimes the cure for what ails.
Their energy, drive and ideas are transforming ... they are catalysts for change and enjoy the unique capacity for leading change from the top down and from the bottom up. Yes they are exhausting but they are also indispensable at times of real crisis.
Perhaps Newt is that man ... perhaps not. I think, though, that your piece framed the possibility nicely and ought certainly give people pause to consider the possibilities.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo you allude to the characteristics of Obama/Pelosi or their soulmate in statist givernment solutions Newt?
Apparently, the masses are giving pause to consider the possibilities of Newt.
Rasmussen.
Dec. 1
Gingrich: 45%
Obama: 43%
Dec. 8
Obama: 45%
Gingrich: 40%
Only Romney consistently runs even or beats Obama in the polls.
Imagine what Newt's poll numbers will look like after Team Obama & their MSM are finished outing him.
Translation: If Gingrich is the nominee the 2012 election will be about Gingrich's baggage--NOT Obama's.
And why not? Gingrich has spent the last ten years leeching millions selling the Obama & Freddie Mac Fed agenda.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou've got it backwards: Imagine what the relatively unscathed Romeny's numbers are going to look like when Obama's team gets done with him?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse