Gingrich, we are told by his supporters, is the true heir to the Reagan legacy of conservatism. But is that really true? Evidence suggests that Gingrich may not have agreed with Reagan on the bedrock of conservatism, limited government.
In an unnoticed 1992 speech, Newt Gingrich in a single utterance took aim not only at a beloved conservative icon but also at a core tenet of the conservative movement: that government must be limited.
Ronald Reagan’s “weakness,” Gingrich told the National Academy of Public Administration in Atlanta, was that “he didn’t think government mattered. . . . The Reagan failure was to grossly undervalue the centrality of government as the organizing mechanism for reinforcing societal behavior.”
A review of thousands of documents detailing Gingrich’s career shows it wasn’t the first time he had criticized Reagan, whom he regularly invokes today in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. When Gingrich was in the House, his chief of staff noted at a 1983 staff meeting that his boss frequently derided Reagan, along with then-White House Chief of Staff James A. Baker III and Robert H. Michel, the House Republican leader.
Gingrich “assumed that he’s the whole Republican Party,” said the Gingrich aide, Frank Gregorsky, according to a transcript of the meeting. “He knows more than the president, the president’s people, Michel, Baker. He calls them stupid all the time, and I think that’s going to get him into big trouble someday.”
This is far from the first suggestion that Gingrich isn’t a real Reagan fan. It’s been suggested on Bloomberg before, but before you start thinking it’s just a left-wing hit piece on Newt, it’s also been discussed here on the Tatler, as well as at National Review. Seems there’s quite a few people across the ideological spectrum questioning whether or not Newt was really as big a supporter of Reagan as he’d like the voters to think now.
Further, as much as conservatives have questioned Romney’s move to the right, it looks like Gingrich made a similar journey:
An examination of the papers collected over nearly three decades reveals a politician of moderate-to-liberal beginnings, a product of the civil rights era who moved to the right with an eye on political expediency — and privately savaged Republicans he was praising in public. Even as he gained a reputation as a conservative firebrand, the documents show Gingrich was viewed by his staff primarily as a tactician — the “tent evangelist” of the conservative movement, one staffer said — with little ideological core.
And there’s also evidence that Gingrich has a problem with ego, which would explain some of his weirder statements on the campaign trail this year:
The files offer a candid glimpse of the former House speaker, a man who could be charming and self-effacing one moment, ambitious and grandiose the next, an admittedly disorganized manager who viewed his role as nothing less than saving the Western world.
“When I say save the West, I mean that,” Gingrich said in a 1979 address to his congressional staff, preserved in the files. “That is my job. . . . It is not my job to win reelection. It is not my job to take care of passport problems. It is not my job to get a bill through Congress. My job description as I have defined it is to save Western civilization.”
The Speaker of the House, saying it’s not his job to get a bill through Congress? I thought that was exactly what a major part the Speaker’s job was. That statement is akin to a doctor saying his job isn’t to see patients.
Is this the kind of man we want going against possibly the biggest narcissist in American presidential history? That’s the open question. Judging from the recent primary results, I’d say the voters are saying no.
Is this the kind of man we want going against possibly the biggest narcissist in American presidential history? That’s the open question. Judging from the recent primary results, I’d say the voters are saying no.
Why, no—of course not. The kind of man we want to go against possibly the biggest narcissist in American presidential history is someone with solid conservative executive credentials, a brilliant mind that is au courant with American history old and new, and an easy verbal facility.
We don’t have that—so in default of that ideal, we prefer to go with the next best thing, which is someone with two and a half out of three, i.e., conservative credentials, the brilliant mind, and the verbal facility, without the executive experience (which, BTW, our current “chief executive” still doesn’t have).
Reagan was not and is not a god. Gingrich criticizing him means nothing. We have, currently, four people in the race: the liberal Democrat in the checked shirt, running as a centrist plastic android (Mitt Romney); the far-left Democrat would-be Man on Horseback, pretending to be a libertarian (Ron Paul); the pocket-protector Student Council nerd who wants to be the Scold-in-Chief (Rick Santorum); and the deeply-flawed, too-clever-by-half, literate patriot (Newt Gingrich).
Me for the Amphibian.
You’re absolutely right, Reagan is not a deity.
However, it’s very disingenuous for a candidate to insult Reagan decades ago and now claim that he’s been a Reaganite the whole time.
If another candidate did that, Gingrich supporters would be screaming “You lie!”
There is likely truth in what you say about the Gingrich camp probably decrying someone outside the camp who raised this.
Why is that? For one simple reason—we have become a “brandname” society. “Brands” have long replaced thought; look at the Obama camp attempting to work the “racist” brand in every way possible. By the same token, we have those who are looking to be seen as conservative working the “Reagan” brand—sadly, because they know, or at least suspect, that they cannot count on sufficient numbers of would-be conservative voters understanding what “conservative” means or figuring it out from listening to what the candidates say. So they work the “Reagan” brand name and decry anyone that might conceivably suggest a lack of total fealty to it.
Well, Reagan was not conservative in all things, nor all the time—nor do I intend to support Gingrich because he is a slavish devotee of the “Reagan” brand. In fact, his having the nerve to go against the “Reagan” brand back when that brand had power speaks very well indeed for him, even if he was wrong at the time—for it means he is not a mere errand boy.
We have four current options in the Republican race: the plastic centrist Democrat and guaranteed loser (Romney); the crazy leftwing Democrat and guaranteed loser (Ron Paul); the big-government rightwing moralist (Santorum); and the intermittently conservative Republican (Gingrich). I know which I prefer.
BTW, apologies for being “anonymous” above. I don’t know why the name did not take in the magic box.
I love ya, Buzz, you’re one of my favorite commenters here.
However, on this one, your spinning is obvious.
I pointed out the dishonesty angle, and you completely ignored it.
At its heart, this is not about criticizing Reagan. I do myself, on occasion, particularly trusting the Democrats on tax cuts and illegal alien amnesty.
This is about Gingrich not being 100% honest about what part he played in the Reagan Revolution. He criticized it then, but he now invokes it every chance he gets.
That’s not honest, it’s not truthful, and it’s not what we need in the Oval Office.
We’ve got more than enough dishonesty among the Republican contenders:
1) Santorum is running on the Prog & Prig Platform™, while pretending he’s running as “a conservative.”
2) Romney is running on the Elect Me & My Down-to-Earth Checked Shirt Platform, and will say whatever he needs to say to get elected. He will be liberal or conservative, pro-abortion or pro-life, Uriah Heep or Madame DeFarge, as necessary as long as it gets him a vote.
3) Paul, the Earmark King is running as the anti-earmark candidate.
4) Gingrich is running on conservatism and “fealty to Reagan,” and lapsed a bit in the latter.
Overall, the level of dishonesty that Gingrich has displayed is less than that of his competition. I am not a partisan of Gingrich; I do, however, regard him not merely as least-worst, which he surely is, but ever-so-slightly better than that. And that is what seals the deal.
The difference is, Gingrich is being deceptive about what he himself touts as his #1 reason for conservatives to support him.
Romney isn’t claiming to have followed Reagan’s principles. Santorum hasn’t ever claimed to be anything except what he is. Paul is just Paul, he’s always been the same.
If they only problem Gingrich ever had with Reagan is Newt thought Reagan could have gone farther or faster than he did, then Newt is being perfectly honest about his intentions.
And the truth of it just kills you, when what excludes Romney from being a good Rep candidate is what a great Democrat he makes.
When the only problem Gingrich ever had with Reagan is that he was not as aggressive a conservative as Newt was–and Newt did shrink government unlike Ron, forcing Bill C. to get on board with it and Newt helped sink Romneycare 1.0, aka Hilarycare–you’ll have a hard saying he wasn’t a Reaganite.
He is more Reagan than Reagan.
Oh, CW, Newt wasn’t Speaker in 1979, and I suspect you’ve provided no context to your quote because it doesn’t support your point.
Your selling something, not being honest.
Your “criticism” of Romney is all weak tea.
Look, we know “the Wanderer” has it in for Gingrich. Fine, man. Have at it.
But to go back and find examples of where Gingrich criticized Reagan and then to paint Gingrich as an apostate is cheap, dirty and truculent sleight-of-hand that is unacceptable even for the Tatler.
For what it’s worth, Reagan raised taxes. He trusted Demoncrats to cut spending. He cut and ran from Beirut. The list may be short but it’s not non-existent.
So, let’s be fair shall we? Let’s put Conservative Wanderer on a hiatus until he manages to discover a sense of fairness and balance in his writing. Because this piece certainly displays neither attribute.
Funny, you didn’t seem to think my earlier Romney piece was biased.
Interesting, that.
It’s not your bias I object to.
It’s your transparent dishonesty and unfairness.
Like I said, have at it. Just don’t wiggle in the intellectual gutter while doing it.
There is a lot you can attack Gingrinch for, but in 1979 he wasn’t speaker or anywhere close to being so. The speech makes sense.God’s will more folks in Congress felt the same.
I consider myself a hardcore admirer of Reagan. I voted for him in the very first election I was old enough to vot in and would happily agree to seeing him carved into Mt Rushmore.
However, he was not perfect, there were things he did I disagreed with, and criticism of him was sometimes warranted.
Doesn’t diminish his legacy, just acknowledges he was human.
Newt was a key player during this time frame in the House of Representatives – and the strength Newt tapped into that resulted in triumph when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives was in large part a reverbration from the Reagan Revolution.
The fact that Reagan’s son and widow both endorsed Newt cannot be overstated either.
If the reality was as described and Newt was some sort of liberal in disguise who sought to undermine Reagan, I am certain his son would not have endorsed Newt – and neither would Nancy.
On a more practical level, Newt has concrete accomplishments in Congress and is the only one who seems willing – and able – to go toe to toe with Obama in debates.
My hope is to be able to vote for Newt in November!
Any honest examination of Gingrich’s history will show that he both criticized and praised Reagan. In this post, no attempt is made to show Gingrich’s support for Reagan, only the criticism.
This is the same one-sided and deceptive approach used when Gingrich criticized Romney’s vulture capitalism. It seems the Romney fans, unable to find any notable value in their candidate, simply intend to continue their assault upon his competitors.
They say that all is fair in love and war and while that may be true, it also results in the assessment of the protagonists. Romney’s attacks leave nothing to inspire, let alone admire in the man.