The Corner

The Downside of Being the Smartest Guy in the Room

For what it’s worth, I’m still a fan of Gingrich. I still believe that, among politicians, and with the exception of Bill Clinton, he’s the best extemporaneous political speaker in America. He’s shown me personal kindnesses as well and, as I’ve disclosed many times, my wife once worked for him. But, as the kids say, he needs to check himself before he wrecks himself — if he hasn’t already (BTW I fully expect the vast majority of commenters to fall into the “it’s too late for Newt” column).

In addition to Rich’s excellent column on Newt, I’d recommend the Wall Street Journal’s editorial, particularly this passage:

Yet now he is trashing Mr. Ryan for thinking far more deeply about health care, and in a far more principled fashion, than Mr. Gingrich ever has. The episode reveals the Georgian’s weakness as a candidate, and especially as a potential President—to wit, his odd combination of partisan, divisive rhetoric and poll-driven policy timidity.

This is the best single line explaining the contradictions of Gingrichian politics. Gingrich is very wedded to the idea that he should be on the majority side of every major public policy issue. That’s why he believes in framing policy questions so they become “70-30 issues” (or sometimes even “80-20″ issues) — i.e. issues where he’s on the side of 70 percent of Americans against the 30 percent “elite.”

As a political formula, there’s much to recommend this. But there are a couple problems as well. First, simply rephrasing the issues so that 70 percent of those polled agree with you is not the same thing as actually finding a policy that a super-majority of the public will rally behind (or get through Congress). Polarizing rhetoric does not automatically yield support for polarized policy. So that’s why — or at least partly why — Gingrich “frames” things in such stark terms while adhering to fairly timid policies.

One exception of course is when he proposes win-win policies that seem visionary (sometimes because they are) but are also about 10 steps ahead of where we actually are and hence take little political courage and therefore come at little political cost.

For instance, yesterday Jim Pinkerton defended Newt in the Corner by pointing to the fact that Newt’s policy prescription on Alzheimer’s disease is to “cure it.” I think Gingrich and Pinkerton make a great point about how cures are cheaper than care. But come on. Who’s against curing Alzheimer’s? While we’re at it, let’s cure all of the diseases and save trillions. In the meantime what do we do about health care costs today? Newt’s immediate policy proposals on Meet the Press were twofold: attack fraud and “start a conversation.”

One major source of Newt’s problems is that he is almost always the smartest guy in the room. Compounding this problem is an ability and compulsion to defend any position he takes. For a politician this can be an enormous problem because it creates a climate where he can’t take unwelcome advice from his staff. I don’t mean because he’s a bullying boss — I know many people who have worked for Newt, including my wife, and by all accounts he’s a very generous and decent employer and a surprisingly good listener. The problem is that he can always “win” the arguments about whether he made a mistake. It would be interesting to know if after his Meet the Press interview anybody on Newt’s staff told him, “Uh, sir, that stuff about Paul Ryan’s budget and the individual mandate is going to create huge problems.” If no one said something like that, it’s a bad sign, either because they couldn’t see the obvious either, or because they were afraid to tell the boss the truth.

You can’t run for president of the United States with a staff of advisers who think everything you do is a homerun. Well, you can, but you can’t possibly win.

Update: Already a slew of readers tell me that Obama disproves the last graf. Maybe so. But for reasons good and bad Newt is not Obama and Obama is not Newt. So for the sake clarity, let’s change the word “you” in the final two sentences (“You can’t run for president…” to “Newt”).

Most Popular

Culture

White Cats and Black Swans

Making a film of Cats is a bold endeavor — it is a musical with no real plot, based on T. S. Eliot’s idea of child-appropriate poems, and old Tom was a strange cat indeed. Casting Idris Elba as the criminal cat Macavity seems almost inevitable — he has always made a great gangster — but I think there was ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The White Ghetto

Editor's Note: In celebration of Kevin D. Williamson’s newest book, The Smallest Minority: Independent Thinking in the Age of Mob Politics, National Review is republishing some of our favorites of his from the past ten years. This article originally appeared in the December 16, 2013, issue of National ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Other Case against Reparations

Reparations are an ethical disaster. Proceeding from a doctrine of collective guilt, they are the penalty for slavery and Jim Crow, sins of which few living Americans stand accused. An offense against common sense as well as morality, reparations would take from Bubba and give to Barack, never mind if the former ... Read More
Politics & Policy

May I See Your ID?

Identity is big these days, and probably all days: racial identity, ethnic identity, political identity, etc. Tribalism. It seems to be baked into the human cake. Only the consciously, persistently religious, or spiritual, transcend it, I suppose. (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor ... Read More
Health Care

The Puzzling Problem of Vaping

San Francisco -- A 29-story office building at 123 Mission Street illustrates the policy puzzles that fester because of these facts: For centuries, tobacco has been a widely used, legal consumer good that does serious and often lethal harm when used as it is intended to be used. And its harmfulness has been a ... Read More