Sunday, May 20 , 2018, 8:07 pm | Fair 64º

 
 
 
 

Mona Charen: Who’s the Most Conservative of Them All?

For so many reasons, presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is a bad bet for the Republican Party

While the nation was digesting its turkey dinner, Rep. Michele Bachmann was seizing an opportunity to score points at Newt Gingrich’s expense. Suggesting that his position on illegal immigration amounts to “amnesty,” Bachmann predicted that the GOP electorate would “come home” to the person who has been the most “consistent conservative.” That would be, she offers, herself.

The voters may not agree with her solution, but many in the GOP do seem to be looking for a — forgive the expression — “thrill down the leg” candidate to take on President Barack Obama in the general election. Thus, the seismic spikes for Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and even, briefly, Donald Trump. It is now, apparently, Gingrich’s turn in what Brit Hume called “the single most dangerous place to be in American politics, which is the non-Romney leader in the Republican field.”

The adage has it that when the two parties pick their nominees, “Democrats want to fall in love and Republicans want to fall in line.” It will probably hold true. But there is more than a whiff of Democrat-style swooning in the Republican contest so far.

The Union Leader’s endorsement didn’t quite put it the way The Augusta Chronicle did (“Why not Newt?”), but it did cite Gingrich’s “courage and conviction.” Yet, curiously, within its editorial endorsement, the Union Leader inadvertently cited the best reason not to support Gingrich: “... Republican primary voters too often make the mistake of preferring an unattainable ideal to the best candidate who is actually running.”

Just so, but back to Gingrich.

It isn’t the three marriages — though the hospital visit to discuss divorce proceedings while his first wife was recuperating from cancer surgery is not an agreeable image. It isn’t the ethics violation, for which the House Ethics Committee cited him when he was speaker. (The Internal Revenue Service later ruled that he had not violated the tax laws.) And it isn’t his position on illegal immigrants with deep roots in America.

Gingrich is a bad bet because he will embarrass the Republican Party. He will do so through things he has already said and done and in ways we can’t predict except to be sure — because character will win out — that they will happen.

No sooner had Republicans, with a huge boost from Gingrich, achieved the long-denied prize of control of the House of Representatives than Gingrich embarrassed the party by signing a $4.5 million book deal. Though an effective, even inspired, backbencher in Congress, Gingrich proved an incompetent and sometimes petulant leader. He explained that his decision to shut down the government in 1995 was in part motivated by President Bill Clinton’s failure to spend time with him on Air Force One when the two were returning from Yitzhak Rabin’s funeral. “It’s petty, but I think it’s human,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich was the only speaker of the House in U.S. history to be removed by his own party. It wasn’t a cabal of liberals who forced him out, but Dick Armey, Bill Paxon, Tom DeLay and John Boehner.

Gingrich is lauded as a “conviction” politician and a man of ideas. But his convictions are flexible, and his ideas are half-baked when they’re not loopy. Always glib and self-assured, Gingrich declared on March 7 that he would impose a no-fly zone on Libya. On March 23, he just as smoothly declared, “I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi.” Though he now says he doesn’t know whether the globe is warming, he filmed a commercial with Nancy Pelosi in 2008 saying, “Our country must take action to combat climate change.”

Gingrich rose to prominence in the Republican Party by citing the loose ethics of Speaker Jim Wright. Yet in his post-government career, he has been playing the traditional game of selling influence. Among his many lucrative clients was Freddie Mac. The government-sponsored enterprise reportedly paid the former speaker $1.8 million. Gingrich explained that this was for his “advice as a historian.” Because of his grandiosity, it’s possible that Gingrich actually believes this. Either way — whether he was for sale or so vain that he missed what was obvious to others — it’s not inspiring leadership.

Gingrich once said that to understand him, you needed to do no more than to read “futurist” Alvin Toffler. The former speaker’s sweeping generalizations, flamboyant pronouncements and soaring banalities do indeed seem influenced by Toffler. But Toffler is the opposite of a conservative. In The Third Wave, he declared that the founders were “obsolete.” So should Toffler’s acolyte be.

Mona Charen of National Review magazine writes for Creators Syndicate. Click here for more information or to contact her. Follow Mona Charen on Twitter: @mcharen.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Supporter

Enter your email
Select your membership level
×

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >