"I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
The more I see Newt Gingrich out there on the stump, the more I like him. The more I think, "Okay, this could actually happen."
He's clearly won not just the debate, but the contest of ideas, and the exhibition of passion. He can think on his feet, he's fearless, and does anyone doubt that he would clean Barack Obama's clock in the debates this autumn?
Still: he makes me nervous. I'm just being honest, here, Gingrich supporters.
So, reposted here, without comment, is this morning's press release from Romney World, in which Speaker Gingrich compares himself to, among others, Moses, Pericles, Charles De Gaulle, and a viking:
Speaker Gingrich Has Compared Himself to a Litany of Historical Leaders:
Ronald Reagan And Margaret Thatcher: “Gingrich said he learned a lot about himself in the political wilderness. … In the same breath, he compares himself to two conservative giants. With Gingrich, humility has its limits. ‘Because I am much like Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, I’m such an unconventional political figure that you really need to design a unique campaign that fits the way I operate and what I’m trying to do.’” (Jim Acosta, “Newt Gingrich Back From The Brink,” CNN.com, 11/16/11)
Abraham Lincoln: “Gingrich began his speech with remarks in which he predicted an economic recovery ‘literally’ the night Republicans would send Barack Obama home, and then announced, ‘I begin as Lincoln did.’ He argued that, like Lincoln, all his ideas came out of the Declaration of Independence.” (Jason Horowitz, “Newt Gingrich Draws Contrast With Romney,” The Washington Post, 12/1/11)
Woodrow Wilson: “He earned a PhD in history and taught college before winning a seat in Congress. He has often spoken of himself as a historian. In 1995, he told CNN’s Bob Franken: ‘I am the most seriously professorial politician since Woodrow Wilson.’” (John Pitney, “Five Myths About Newt Gingrich,” The Washington Post, 11/22/11)
Henry Clay: “Putting his tumultuous four years in the speaker’s chair into historical perspective, the former history professor compared himself to 19th century statesman Henry Clay, ‘the great compromiser’ who lost three bids for the presidency and served as speaker and secretary of State. Gingrich said that like Clay, he did more than just preside over the House. ‘I was not a presider, I was the leader,’ Gingrich said in the interview. ‘I think Henry Clay’s probably the only other speaker to have been a national leader and a speaker of the House simultaneously.’” (William Welch, “Gingrich: I’ll Go Down As Leader, Clinton As Tragedy,” USA Today, 8/30/99)
Charles De Gaulle: “‘At one point, I asked Gingrich, now a healthful-looking 65, about his sudden exit from Congress in 1998. ‘First of all, in the Toynbeean sense, I believe in departure and return,’ he told me. ‘In the what sense?’ I asked. ‘Arnold Toynbee,’ he replied matter-of-factly, referring to the English writer Arnold J. Toynbee, who wrote ‘A Study of History.’ ‘I believe in the sense that, you know, De Gaulle had to go to Colombey-les-Deux-Églises for 11 years.’ ‘I’m sorry?’ ‘Departure and return. And someone once said to me, if you don’t leave, you can’t come back, because you’ve never left.’” (Matt Bai, “Newt. Again.” New York Times Magazine, 2/25/09)
William Wallace: “‘If you go out and see what’s happening in the Tea Party, the last thing you want is a passionless election,’ Gingrich says, then refers to the epic movie about the battle for Scottish independence in the 13th century. ‘Remember Braveheart? These people want somebody who plants a flag in the ground, gives a speech and yells “Charge!” That is, someone like him.” (Susan Page, “Rising From The Pack, Gingrich Invites Scrutiny,” USA Today, 11/21/11)
Pericles: “In a long interview on May 4, 1992, devoted almost exclusively to the topic of Gingrich, [former White House aide Richard] Darman concluded that Gingrich was ‘an unstable personality’ who talks about four or five great people in history, including Pericles and himself.” (Bob Woodward, “In His Debut In Washington’s Power Struggles, Gingrich Threw A Bomb,” The Washington Post, 12/24/11)
The Duke Of Wellington: “Obsessed recently with Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, [Gingrich] likened the appropriations triumph to the way the British expeditionary force maneuvered against the French during the Peninsular War, a campaign in Portugal and Spain in the early 1800s that eventually led to Wellington’s ascendance and Napoleon’s abdication.” (Michael Weisskopf and David Maraniss, “In A Moment Of Crisis, The Speaker Persuades,” The Washington Post, 8/13/95)
A Viking: “With his machine-gun staccato delivery, [Gingrich] is the center of attention. He terms himself a ‘Viking.’” (“Gingrich Delivers For GOP Faithful,” South Bend Tribune, 7/28/95)
Thomas Edison: “Once he took over GOPAC in 1986, the organization became what he called the creative thinking and research group of the Republican Party. ‘We are on the way to becoming the Bell Labs of politics,’ Mr. Gingrich proclaimed. ‘That’s the closest model you can find to what we do, and nobody else is in that business. The first thing you need at Bell Labs is a Thomas Edison, and the second thing you need is a real understanding of how you go from scientific theory to a marketable product.’” (Katharine Q. Seelye, “Birth Of A Vision,” The New York Times, 12/3/95)
Vince Lombardi: “By four in the morning, [Gingrich] had moved on to football metaphors. What the Republicans had accomplished, Gingrich said, was like the old Green Bay Packers sweep during the days of Coach Vince Lombardi: The opposition knows you are going to run at them, but they cannot stop you. Lombardi, Gingrich said, believed that the team that doesn’t break in the fourth quarter wins.” (Michael Weisskopf and David Maraniss, “In A Moment Of Crisis, The Speaker Persuades,” The Washington Post, 8/13/95)
The Wright Brothers: “At that dinner, held in a convention center in Johnston, Gingrich sought to add more emotional lift into his stump speech. ‘I am asking you to embark with me on a voyage of invention and discovery,’ he said, ‘to be as bold and as brave as the Wright brothers.’” (Jason Horowitz, “Newt Gingrich Draws Contrast With Romney,” The Washington Post, 12/1/11)
Moses: “On this night, Gingrich congratulated his troops on standing united and inspired them with stories about Charles de Gaulle’s heroism and George Washington at Valley Forge … At one point, he likened himself, lightheartedly, to Moses. He’d help them cross the Red Sea once again, Gingrich vowed, but only if they promised, this time, to stay on the other side.” (Matt Bai, “Newt. Again.” New York Times Magazine, 2/25/09)
I want a president who thinks big. But I also want a president who doesn't think he's a viking. Or am I being too choosy?
- Comment (115)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
Beggars cannot be choosers.
Jun '11
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
Crow's Nest: I'm just trying to say, They're all arrogant. So, it's a silly thing to say of one against the other, especially with this rather weak collection that, in my view, displays an impressive grasp of the arc of history.
Edited on Jan 20 at 9:14amMay '10
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
Newt doesn't have a chance in the general election. He has horrible polling numbers when it comes to women voters, and though they aren't represented terribly well on Ricochet, they do vote. I know the zingers he throws out at the debates are red meat for the already converted, but they won't win over independents. And where are all of his former colleagues in Congress? Are they endorsing him, praising him for his leadership as Speaker? And plenty of people still remember how he torpedoed Bush 41. There's a difference between having a big ego and being a megalomaniac. Newt is the latter.
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
Perfectly put.
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
Another good reason to think that Newt's "unelectability" isn't so "un" after all.
Dec '10
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
tabula rasa
Western Chauvinist: ...I read through it and I'm laughing and delighting in Newt's intellectual/historical showboating. ...
WC: I hate to disagree. We have a president who delights in showboating. Sadly, Newt has taken it to a new level. It's pretentious, narcissistic to the extreme, and not the characteristic I look for in a president (I don't remember Reagan making self-comparisons like Newt does). Perhaps a hint of humility: is that too much to ask?
Newt's gone way beyond the hand-stand stage--we're into serious delusion. Like jumping off the house because he thinks he really is Superman.
I'm a third-way gal, TR. I'm supporting Santorum, so I don't think we really disagree. I'm just making observations about the flaws of both Mitt and Newt, and giving a sincere response to Newt's intellectual flourishes.
"Showboating" is probably a term better applied to Obama, because he really hasn't any achievements of excellence as the basis for his self regard; his electoral and legislative victories stem from his talent for bamboozling people into believing the stale Leftist tropes of redistributive "fairness" and government as god.
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
Truer words....
Mar '11
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
Pastor Esget (please let me know if you prefer another title): I was being playfully provocative (as I often am; the internet is so terribly bad at conveying that tone. Conversation is more suited to it.). I completely agree with you as to the charge (Newt and Romney are arrogant), and as to your assessment of the field (weak). I shan't charge you unjustly, merely provoke.
I am perhaps more skeptical about whether or not there is an 'arc' to history--in this sense, (strangely?) I prefer what some have called the 'monumentalist' approach favored only in temperament by Mr. Gingrich (though I am not ignorant of the insights of Tocqueville's approach to historical forces).
Even still and nevertheless, I am also more sympathetic to a thing which as yet has no name, but which is often mistaken for arrogance. At this point, you might be comfortable. What is commonly mistaken as arrogance, as I said previously, in the genuine case (which is not Newt), is something else entirely which ought to be distinguished from this vice.
Jun '10
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
Western Chauvinist
tabula rasa
WC: I hate to disagree. We have a president who delights in showboating. Sadly, Newt has taken it to a new level. It's pretentious, narcissistic to the extreme, and not the characteristic I look for in a president (I don't remember Reagan making self-comparisons like Newt does). Perhaps a hint of humility: is that too much to ask?
Newt's gone way beyond the hand-stand stage--we're into serious delusion. Like jumping off the house because he thinks he really is Superman.
I'm a third-way gal, TR. I'm supporting Santorum, so I don't think we really disagree. I'm just making observations about the flaws of both Mitt and Newt, and giving a sincere response to Newt's intellectual flourishes.
"Showboating" is probably a term better applied to Obama, because he really hasn't any achievements of excellence as the basis for his self regard; his electoral and legislative victories stem from his talent for bamboozling people into believing the stale Leftist tropes of redistributive "fairness" and government as god.
I agree. Truce.
Jun '11
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
I'm perfectly happy to be simply "Christopher" if I'm not your pastor or a pastor in your church body (I'm Lutheran [Missouri Synod], by the way). I happily answer to "Pastor" or "Father." In my first parish I was affectionately (I think!) called "Preacher man" by some. I despise "reverend." If there's anything that doesn't fit, that's it!
If a person wants to honor the office by giving me a title, that's great. But I don't think it's something to be demanded.
To everyone else: Sorry for the sidebar!
Edited on Jan 20 at 10:18amJun '11
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
Crow's Nest: <> I was being playfully provocative (as I often am; the internet is so terribly bad at conveying that tone. Conversation is more suited to it.). <>
I am perhaps more skeptical about whether or not there is an 'arc' to history--in this sense, (strangely?) I prefer what some have called the 'monumentalist' approach favored only in temperament by Mr. Gingrich <>Even still and nevertheless, I am also more sympathetic to a thing which as yet has no name, but which is often mistaken for arrogance. <>
You raise so many good points. As a Christian, I see all of history wrapped up in the incarnation of Christ. But outside of that, Newt does seem to see, shall we say the movement of history in a way that others haven't shown they grasp.
I both admire and despise the extreme confidence I see in people like Newt. Despise because it so easily becomes sinful pride; admire because I lack it (which is why I can barely manage to keep a congregation on the right path, let alone anything bigger!).
Apr '11
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
As DrewInWisconsin says, Newt is unusually fluent at making the apt historical allusion. I find it refreshing to hear something other than limp references to movies and pop culture.
He often isn't making any comparison of himself and the historical personage, he is illustrating to his audience what they have to do (e.g., Edison, Lombardi). Even when he is talking about himself, it is usually to make one point of comparison (e.g., Wilson, de Gaulle). To propose a thought experiment, not everyone who proposes a Gedankenexperiment is likening himself to Einstein.
Mar '11
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
I'm perfectly happy to be simply "Christopher" if I'm not your pastor or a pastor in your church body (I'm Lutheran [Missouri Synod], by the way). I happily answer to "Pastor" or "Father."
Hi, Christopher. I didn't mean to make you uncomfortable (and thanks for the sidebar), merely show the cordial respect I think that we conservatives owe to all of those intermediary and worthy institutions and places in society (Profs, Drs, MDs, Frs, and many others besides) that help to shape our common life.
Nov '11
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
Christopher Esget
I'm perfectly happy to be simply "Christopher" if I'm not your pastor or a pastor in your church body (I'm Lutheran [Missouri Synod], by the way). I happily answer to "Pastor" or "Father." In my first parish I was affectionately (I think!) called "Preacher man" by some. I despise "reverend." If there's anything that doesn't fit, that's it!
If a person wants to honor the office by giving me a title, that's great. But I don't think it's something to be demanded.
To everyone else: Sorry for the sidebar! · 22 minutes ago
Edited 13 minutes ago
A delightful divertissement, Pastor. (From a fellow Lutheran).
Jun '11
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
Thanks, you're very kind. And I agree with your instincts. My wife likes to watch those movies based on Jane Austen books, and it cracks me up how even spouses will refer to each other as "Mr." or "Mrs."
My above comment was simply giving you, and anyone on Ricochet (well, except Mollie), permission to call me whatever you feel comfortable with. Cheers!
Edited on Jan 20 at 10:52amMar '11
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
My wife likes to watch those movies based on Jane Austen books
She has rare and excellent taste then (although not ALL the movies of are equal quality).
Jane Austen may very well by the greatest novelist of modernity. I recommend her work routinely (on the occasions which I get to do such things), but especially Pride and Prejudice. Austen had a mastery, in the modern context, of the conflicts that command the attention of the heart and soul.
In this way, she is superior to Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. Tolstoy is tremendous--almost an epic poet. Yet, he must wrap everything in epic, he is less able to see and closely explore the problems within every human heart. Dostoyevsky is truly magnificent. He understands human fallenness and frailty better than nearly everyone. But his talent lies in the the exposition of the cruel, not the beautiful.
To portray the beautiful beautifully is not simple.
So: On the one hand, I'm sorry, Sen. Santorum, for having commandeered your thread. On the other, if you read Austen closely, she has a dual purpose in this context. She knows your argument, and she can command the imagination.
Nov '11
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
Haakon Dahl
You mean in being killed for his beliefs? · 4 hours ago
Hmmm?!?!
Hadn't thought of it exactly that way. I was thinking specifically of Ben Franklin's "humble" prescription.
But yours is a more interesting idea. One must not ignore the death-seeking inclination in most great historical figures--a strange, often generous, desire to expend themselves completely, which I would certainly attribute to Socrates, and which I suppose some might also attribute to Jesus.
Were they simply executed, or did they seek their own demise, and receive it on their own terms, rather than on the terms of their ostensible executioners?
In the deepest place in the soul of every great politician is more than a wish, there's a need, to go out in a blaze of glory.
From a proper distance, it can be beautiful, enlightening, and life-sustaining for those left behind.
But don't stand too close!
Mar '11
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
Blast! I combined two posts in one! Curses. Newt, everything I said in #96 still applies.
Sen. Santorum, I'll come back to you!
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
I enjoy Newt's skill at crafting historical references as much as the next Ricochetian, but this?
"I am the most seriously professorial politician since Woodrow Wilson.”
Ugh. That's three things I don't like, right there.
Dec '10
Re: "I Think Grandiose Thoughts"
Was not JFK applauded for borrowing G.B. Shaw's idea?
"Some men see things as they are, and ask, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'"
How is that materially different from "I think grandiose ideas"?