« Water, Water, Not Everywhere... | Main | Would You Like Some Solitaire? »
August 04, 2005
Modern Newt
Since bloggers (Mark, Kevin, Matt) are talking about Newt Gingrich today, here are some highlights from GQ's spread on the guy. Newt, while bright and ideologically consistent, is also batshit crazy, a real radical. Like lots of young liberals weaned on the current Bush administration's deceptiveness, I have a certain affection for Gingrich's essential honesty in advocating rightwing nuttery as a governing platform. But that doesn't make him a better president than the others, just more respectable (and defeatable). Some of these quotes will explain why. The first shows why Newt is the candidate of crazy conservative comic-book artists. He echoes their powerlessness and amplifies it, giving it volume and a rationale. He takes their paranoia and tells them it's principle. Newt, you have to realize, perfected the "whine of the oppressed white-man" long before it was on Thomas Frank's radar. It's how he won Congress in 1994:
Didn't the 2004 election demonstrate that the secular lefties are on the ropes?
"No, they're not on the ropes," Newt says. "They're out of power, but they're not out of control. They control the unversities. They have control of the Senate, the staffs of bureaucracies. They have control of the language we use.
Uh, isn't the majority party in the Senate...Republican?
"You can't pass anything genuinely radical. You can't get it through the Senate."
So there's your first tip on Newt. He's a radical. A committed one. Even now, at the pinnacle of right-wing ascendance, he thinks, or at least argues, that the left is in control. We control the language(???), the colleges, the staff. Reality would ask, Who cares? So some English professors vote Kerry? So some nameless bureaucrats who get ignored by the high-value donors Bush appoints to be their boss want gay marriage? That trumps control of the courts, the congress, and the White House? And if we control the language, why do we let Gingrich talk like that? Whichever inefficient government bureaucrats we appointed to the position should be summarily fired! If only we hadn't given them that union...
Newt on the Clintons:
"Total admiration," Newt says of Hillary. "You have to respect her. This is a first-class professional. And if Bill is first spouse, it'll be one of the great moments. A new TV show! The East Wing!
The Clintons are never far from Newt's mind. They're like the Kennedys were to Nixon: glamorous, charismatic, brazen power-grabbing elitist amoral lying dream killers. Wrong on health care, wrong on the budget, wrong on them military...and so damned clever! Newt's class of 94 had seen it time and again: every time Speaker Gingrich galloped into the Oval Office with his musket loaded for Slick Willie, he shuffled out holding his gonads. "It got to the point where Republican freshmen were afraid to send him in there alone," remembers Newt's archivist and friend, Mel Stelley. "By the time Newt would get back to his office, Clinton's press secretary had already announced the opposite of what they'd agreed on. I'd say, 'Newt, how'd you get suckered in? ' And he'd say, 'Clinton would come up from behind his desk, put his arm around me, and say "Newt, you're absolutely right." Just charm the pants right off of you.'"
Newt's military advisor on torture:
I slide Bill the front section of today's Times and ask him what he thinks of the lead story, about USA torture policies in Iraq.
The man who briefs Newt Gingrich on national-security matters shrugs and says with a grin, "Hey, if it works, it works."
The guy may be funnier, smart, wonkier than the modern GOP, but that doesn't make him better. Newt's Republican Revolution created the Bush Congress. If not for Gingrich's single-minded pursuit of Clinton's sexual indiscretions, saying they were:
the most systematic, deliberate obstruction of justice, cover-up, and effort to avoid the truth we have ever seen in American history...never again, as long as I am speaker, [will I] make a speech without commenting on this topic.
He was a more honest GOP. Just as vile, radical, heartless, and ruthless as the modern group, but not as cunning or deceptive. Granted, there's value in honesty, but what Newt's lack of artifice reveals isn't moral, it's what created much of what's poisonous in today's political world. The GOP relies on deception because Newt proved Americans won't stand for their agenda. The GOP can get away with deception because Newt, he of multiple divorces, relentlessly attacked Clinton's character, prosecuted Democrats, and elected a radical Congress through sheer force of invective. Don't thank the guy. Bury him. And all those he's created.
August 4, 2005 in Republicans | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/2948110
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Modern Newt:
» Ezra Klein: Modern Newt from Poor Richard's Anorak
Link: Ezra Klein: Modern Newt. This is a pretty accurate description of the Newt. [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 4, 2005 9:34:35 PM
» Don't Get Fooled by the New Newt - He's the Same as the Old Newt from TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Ezra Klein, Kevin Drum , Matt Yglesias and Mark Schmidt discuss the new Newt Gingrich today. [hat tip to Crooks and Liars] Let's not get fooled again. Newt Gingrich's 1994 Contract On America was a doozy of a document. Since... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 5, 2005 3:38:16 AM
» Don't Get Fooled by the New Newt - He's the Same as the Old Newt from TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Ezra Klein, Kevin Drum , Matt Yglesias and Mark Schmidt discuss the new Newt Gingrich today. [hat tip to Crooks and Liars] Let's not get fooled again. Newt Gingrich's 1994 Contract On America was a doozy of a document. Since... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 5, 2005 3:43:11 AM
» Don't Get Fooled by the New Newt - He's the Same as the Old Newt from TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Ezra Klein, Kevin Drum , Matt Yglesias and Mark Schmidt discuss the new Newt Gingrich today. [hat tip to Crooks and Liars] Let's not get fooled again. Newt Gingrich's 1994 Contract On America was a doozy of a document. Since... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 5, 2005 10:57:12 AM
Comments
I miss Newt, too. He was a great foil, and would so reliably say and do the most preposterous things that he drove liberal fundraising through the roof. Newt would say things like "let Medicare wither on the vine" and "what the homeless really need are laptops", and then shut down the government out of pique.
Alas, the modern GOP learned from his mistakes, having bloodless functionaries (Hastert, Frist) serving as its public leadership, and concealing their radical conservatism ("reforming" social security to save it, etc.). It realizes that their real agenda is actually quite unpopular, and that the media is so cowed that it won't call them on their contradictions or distortions. Newt actually thought that the American People believed his right-wing claptrap, and acted accordingly. Rove/DeLay know that people would reject their actual agenda, so they keep it well hidden behind a screen of lies and phony patriotism.
Newt also had this crazy-ass 1950s belief in the Glorious Scientific World Of Tomorrow that drove many of his loopier utterances. Dude read too much science fiction, and thought that recycling Robert Heinlein tropes made him an especially daring public intellectual. I miss his nuttiness, which was a lot more fun than the openly theocratic batch of Alpha Wingnuts we're stuck with today.
It's also interesting to see Newt positioning himself for a comeback. He seems to be positioning himself as a "reform conservative" who warns about the corruption at the heart of Rove/DeLayism. The press loves no-one more than someone who's willing to criticise their own (see Lieberman, McCain, etc.), and he'd get a lot of Democrats publically agreeing with him, which would put him in a very nice position once the current (unsustainable) structure of conservative governance comes crashing down.
Posted by: FMguru | Aug 4, 2005 6:15:44 PM
Newt surely does seems to be emerging from hibernation, but with what goal is unclear.
Presidential nomination seems to be the only path available to power, if he wants national office again. It's hard for me to see who can win the support of the CorpCons, TheoCons, and PNAC NeoCons. Newt might be stronger than Frist or Guiliani or McCain within the party ranks. Jeb Bush clearly comes with less baggage, except the family ties - which is both his biggest strength and weakness.
We shouldn't forget that Gingrich DID remake the Repub. congressional party, and was highly effective before he blew it with his scandals and government shutdown.
He is scary. A president he would be very scary, for he is truly radical, but with a smile on his face and some coherency of thought. Contrasted with the low-involvement Bush II, he would be involved deeply in everything in government.
Newt is a master of propaganda-like framing. Be afraid if he is the candidate.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Aug 4, 2005 6:32:05 PM
Ezra,
A good rule of thumb to follow is that the more names a person calls another or the more ad hominem attacks are put forth, the weaker the actual argument really is and the more that the person is relying on raw emotion - generally dislike or hatred.
Your argument is made up of little else. Newt Gingrich is only radical to those who think that moveon.org represents the center. He's solid conservative politically and a scumbag personally, but he's no radical.
Some folks really oughtta take a deep breath. Some sound a lot like the rabid-right during the 90s and don't know it.
Posted by: RW | Aug 4, 2005 6:35:47 PM
You're right, the last things Dems should do is emulate the late 90s right. Look what happenned to them: control of all three branches of the government. Thanks for the heartfelt advice, RW. I'm sure you have only our best interests in mind.
Does Ken Mehlman PayPal you a nickel everytime you post in a blog's comment section?
Posted by: FMguru | Aug 4, 2005 7:20:52 PM
Says Newt:
"You can't pass anything genuinely radical. You can't get it through the Senate."
You've got a guy who bemoans his own inability to be as radical as he wishes, a guy who has proudly thought of himself as a revolutionary, and you attack me for echoing him? How very. very strange.
Posted by: Ezra Klein | Aug 4, 2005 8:06:19 PM
Gingrich thinks the Senate's problem is it's not radical enough? I seem to remember this whole Terri Schiavo fiasco that seemed pretty radical to most people.
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | Aug 4, 2005 8:33:36 PM
When I was a young graduate student (dinosaurs still roamed and Ezra was but a twinkle in Pops Klein's eye) at Georgia Tech, Newt was a freshman congressman from Decatur who openly believed in UFOs. You've got to love that in a congressman. Also, Bill Clinton seemed to have pretty good luck keeping Newt under control. As soft a spot as I have for my fellow nerds, I'm afraid that Newt no longer has any kind of moderating influence. Although he was not the worst of the modern neo-cons, I still blame him for starting the descent into the inflammatory, lie-based radical right that we see now. Newt was a precursor to Tom Delay.
Posted by: J Bean | Aug 4, 2005 9:06:55 PM
But just think how happy a Newt candidacy would make Virginia Postrel!
Given the choice between Bush and Newt for president, I'd probably take Bush; at least he's a known quantity who doesn't think laptops can solve homelessness. But Newt as a prominent GOP intellectual debating liberals on TV is a wonderful idea. It's not just the things he says; it's the things his Reason Magazine fans say about him. It's like a whole other side of politics, the dormant tech fundamentalists. Were there any other Atari Republicans?
Posted by: tlaura | Aug 4, 2005 9:14:38 PM
hanks for the heartfelt advice, RW. I'm sure you have only our best interests in mind.Ezra (and Democrats) are not my enemy. Just because you might have negative views towards some folks that you disagree with, it doesn't mean others share that rather unenviable trait.
"You can't pass anything genuinely radical. You can't get it through the Senate." You've got a guy who bemoans his own inability to be as radical as he wishes, a guy who has proudly thought of himself as a revolutionary, and you attack me for echoing him? How very. very strange.That's a guy who considered the Contract with America "radical". He considers a fundamental change in the direction of parts of the gov't to be radical (such as Reagan's tax cuts). If your definition of radical is someone who works at changing/implementing the way government works via the Democratic process, then I guess he's a radical. I'd say it's a small-d democrat, but that's me.
I guess it comes down to how people use words. I often see Dem operatives use "extreme right wing" or "far right" to describe some Republican. Well, if some Republican is the "extreme right wing", what does that make the Taliban? The "extra-crispy really really really extreme right wing"? What does that make fascists like Al Qaeda (other than killers), "far right" with sugar on top?
Gingrich differs little from the standard Republican party's platform over the last 20 years. Now, I accept that you think those views are an anathema to what is good and decent in the world, but it's hardly "radical"....unless you think that the majority of folks who have been voting for those things are also radicals.
Folks like Pat Buchanan and James Dobson represent what could be considered the radical wing of the right in American politics, which - using that sort of sliding scale to define "radical" - makes folks like Katrina Vanden Huffel and Eric Alterman radicals.
And come on, Ezra, I didn't "attack" you. I wouldn't "attack" you, I just disagreed. Okay?
As soft a spot as I have for my fellow nerds...True nerds don't have dot-aol at the end of their e-mail addresses. :)
Posted by: RW | Aug 4, 2005 11:18:59 PM
w nerds...
True nerds don't have dot-T
t in the world, but it's hardly "radical"....unless you think that the majority of folks who have been voting for those things are also radicals.
Folks like Pat Buc
Posted by: cc | Aug 5, 2005 1:16:55 AM
thank you for reading about Newt so I don't have to. It would make me hurl.
Posted by: renato | Aug 5, 2005 2:04:37 AM
I love the way these right-wingers use the term "moveon.org" as a pejorative. Its like the new "liberal" for them.
All I hear is "moveon", "moveon", "moveon".
(Speaking in response to RW's post above)
Posted by: The Bulldog Manifesto | Aug 5, 2005 3:38:30 AM
his name is NEWT. for crying out loud, someone gave him that name for a reason.
would you trust a newt, even a smart one, with control over government policies? i sure as hell wouldn't
Posted by: almostinfamous | Aug 5, 2005 10:10:09 AM
RW, I'd like to point out that you're actually arguing that Newt is not radical when compared to the Taliban or Al Quaeda. Are we really prepared to move the goalposts marking the boundaries of legitimate American political discourse that far out?
Have you lost your mind? I mean, using your sliding scale, Timothy McVeigh only blew up 167 people compared to Al Quaeda's thousands--he's positively mainstream! And that Eric Rudolph only killed 2 or 3 people in his bombings of clinics, gay clubs and the Olympics. I guess that would make him pretty much a moderate.
Furthermore, in what universe is SHUTTING DOWN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT not a radical action? In what universe is mis-using government power to unearth a marital affair, publicize it, and then impeach a president over it not radical?
Your side is nuttier, more violent, and more extreme than ours. That really shouldn't be an argument for moving the center of dialogue one giant step to the right...
Posted by: theorajones | Aug 5, 2005 12:40:05 PM
RW, I'd like to point out that you're actually arguing that Newt is not radical when compared to the Taliban or Al Quaeda.Strawman. I never made such an argument, so please let me speak for myself.
Are we really prepared to move the goalposts marking the boundaries of legitimate American political discourse that far out?I clearly put forth (open to debate, of course) some sort of boundraies pertaining to American politics and the fringes. It's right there next to "American politics". Perhaps you overlooked in your zeal to go overboard with the rhetoric that followed?
Posted by: RW | Aug 5, 2005 1:01:59 PM
J Bean said, "Bill Clinton seemed to have pretty good luck keeping Newt under control." Is that right? Funny thing--I seem to recall that the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in the 1994 elections thanks in large part to the tactics and strategy put forth in Newt's GOP candidate playbook. Gingrich's "war plan" was very effective then, and continues to be a centerpiece of GOP electoral campaigns today.
So much for keeping Gingrich "under control." Quite frankly, I can't imagine how things could have gone much worse for Democrats since those golden days of yore when, to read J Bean and other wishful thinkers, Bill Clinton had Gingrich eating out of the palm of his hand.
Posted by: GM | Aug 6, 2005 7:42:22 AM
Poor Ezra Klein, his parents let him play with plastic bags as a wee child...
Then to add insult to injury little Ezra grows up to be a trouser trout troller skulking in public bathrooms looking for love the drunken swine that spawned him denied him...
Is it any wonder why this lad with at best a tenuous grip on reality should consider Newt vile?
Now you fools can get back to being spineless apologists for the terrorist towel heads...
Posted by: ross | Aug 8, 2005 12:07:08 AM
Lessons learned from Ross: gays love terrorists and are gay. Newt Gingritch is obviously not gay. Gay gay gay gay gay. Also, sex with men! Up the bum!
God, I love it when the political discourse gets all technical and stuff.
(gay!)
Posted by: McDuff | Aug 10, 2005 9:11:44 AM



