I’ve got no quarrel with Charles Krauthammer’s argument that then-backbencher Newt Gingrich is dramatically overstating his role in President Reagan’s foreign policy — just as I think (along with John Hood and Steve Hayward) that Newt detractors are dramatically overstating Gingrich’s negative criticisms of Reagan. But it is strange — particularly in light of Reagan administration history — to hear Dr. K conclusorily claim that “foreign policy is presidential. The Congress has almost no say. If it has any, it’s the Senate. It’s not the House.”
It is true that the Supreme Court has described presidential power over foreign affairs as “plenary.” But that principle has been effaced significantly over time. (I am not saying this is a good thing; it is simply a fact.) A textbook example of that erosion is Iran-Contra, the scandal that plagued the late Reagan years. Its principal cause was the Boland amendment — named for the member of the House (Massachusetts Democrat Edward Boland) who proposed the legislation that made it illegal to provide U.S. government funds to the Nicaraguan rebels (the Contras) who were trying to overthrow Daniel Ortega’s Marxist government.
Charles does correctly say that when the House impacts foreign policy, it is due to the majority party — the minority in the House has much less power than in the Senate. But he suggests this is an extraordinarily rare occurrence. I would respectfully counter that Congress, including the House, is much more of a player than he allows. How surprised would we be if, 20 or 30 years from now, some presidential candidate is bragging about how — after being swept into Congress in the 2010 shellacking — he or she helped stop President Obama from closing Gitmo or forced Obama’s hand in getting tough with Iran? And whoever that Congress critter is might actually be right!
Andrew,
Going against the grain like this - better tread lightly - you might lose your parking space!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, yes, except that the Boland Amendment didn't work. The whole point of the Iran-Contra scandal was that the Reagan Administration actually *ignored* the Boland Amendment on the theory that it could essentially do whatever it wanted, including providing aid and comfort to the enemy in the form of weapons. It was essentially a throwback to the Nixonian declaration that if the President does it, it isn't illegal. We saw something similar in the Bush administration and now the Obama administration.Congress may *try* to have power over the executive's foreign policy, but there's not much of a way for it to *enforce* that power except through defunding or impeachment, and I'm not even sure defunding would work.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Logan Act doesn't work, either. Many people have pointed out how Gingrich led the charge against the Democrats who signed the "Dear Comandandante" letter in the house.
While Mr. Charles snickers at Newt's claim to have fought Communism in Congress, in fact he really did fight Communism in Congress.
On a related issue, I suggest you check out a copy Prof. Paul Kengor's book THE CRUSADER: RONALD REAGAN AND THE FALL OF COMMUNISM. On page 317 to 320 we have the text of an inter agency memo which discusses how Ted Kennedy is offering to help with disarmament talks. Between the agencies of which government? That of the USSR; that's who Kennedy was offering to help.
Sometimes, those in Congress have far to much to say on matters of diplomacy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's a reason that we haven't elected someone from the House to the Presidency in 100 years.
Andy's right that their role is significant and matters. But it's not a role that voters usually think is worthy of promotion to the White House.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's incredible how the conservative media forgets the real story behind Gingrich. He became a conservative star on May 15, 1984. It was that day that propelled Gingrich into conservative stardom when he got Tip O'Neill to blow a gasket and have his words taken down, because Gingrich was defending Reagan's policy vis-a-vis Nicaragua and slamming the Democrats for writing a love-letter to Daniel Ortega.
How quickly we forget one of the biggest reasons "Gingrich" is now a household word. It all happened because he made a speech defending Reagan's foreign policy and excoriating the liberal Democrats for not supporting it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe know Newt Gingrich very well.
1. Did he lie about his support for Goldwater? Yes:
"Newt Gingrich: I supported Rockefeller over Goldwater"
2. Did Newt recently lie about his being forced to resign in disgrace from the Speaker's position?
Yes, he did not "walk away" as he claimed.
3. Did Mr. Gingrich recently lie about his ugly reference to the "ghetto"? Yes.
Newt Gingrich is overwhelmingly dishonest - lost in the game of the tall tale. For years he was appearing on Hannity and other Conservative Markets peddling a fake mantra while living a double contradictory existence, which including peddling influence to Fannie and Freddie.
A. Is Mr. Gingrich exploiting the heroic legend of Ronald Reagan for personal gain?
Without a doubt.
B. Has Newt overstated his personal influence during the Reagan Presidency?
Without question.
C. Has the former Speaker exaggerated his personal relationship with Ronald Reagan?
Absolutely.
Mr. Gingrich continues to sink all on the once sound side. His self interest knows no limits. Newt even recently claimed his troubled personal life was a positive, specifically his infidelity, as compared to those who are loyal, devoted, true, committed, honest, etc.
Gingrich even ran to the left on the side of Obama to attack successful Private Enterprise, to try to debase Mr. Romney. Newt is this misguided, obsessed with personal interest, completely destructive for all.
And the enabling continues to ruin reputations on the Conservative side...
Mr. McCarthy should review Ms. S.E. Cupp's recent insight, as she is quite right:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Newt’s Doomed Crusade - The quixotic Gingrich campaign for the White House could sink the conservative movement "
Come on, Andrew. One need look no further than Obama's illegal, unauthorized war in Libya for an idea of Congress' practical power vis-a-vis the president in foreign affairs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with you 95% of the time. This is also one of the 95%.
It is really disconcerting to see the NRO pundits demonizing all the not-Romney's. Don't we get enough of that from Left?
It reminds me of how politicized the military and intelligence fields have become. Instead of just doing their jobs without injecting personal politics, these institutions including media have injected so much personal politics into their work product they have rendered it practically useless to those they supposedly serve.
I understand that NRO is a conservative opinion outlet, but it is not serving the whole conservative community in this GOP nominee process. If all of you think alike - if all of you line up by Romney and are prepared to bash in every head that rises above him - then NRO needs some new blood added to daily posting mix. You won't do that because your brand of Conservatism may not prevail on a level playing field.
I have NEVER considered myself a Tea Party conservative but an independent Republican. This GOP nomination cycle has really underscored to me that NRO does not speak for me in the details, only in the broad brushing of conservative Republican principles.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. McCarthy: You're not supposed to actually parse what Krauthammer says. Just note his schoolmarmy disapproving tone and use of complete sentences during his Tee-Vee appearances and be convinced that he's brilliant. Don't overthink by actually listening closely to the guy and thinking about the substance of what he says.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse