Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Reflecting on the message coming out of the South Carolina primary, Thomas Sowell concludes that the stakes in this November's election merit a gamble.
Whichever candidate the Republican voters finally choose from this year's field, they are bound to have reservations, if not fears. Gingrich's worst could be worse than Romney's worst, both as a candidate and as a president. But Gingrich's best is much better than Romney's best.
Sometimes caution can be carried to the point where it is dangerous. When the Super Bowl is on the line, you don't go with the quarterback who is least likely to throw an interception. You go with the one most likely to throw a touchdown pass.
Regular readers of Ricochet will note that Thomas Sowell's perception of the risk associated with nominating Newt Gingrich resembles Paul Rahe's. But though these men's assessment of the situation is the same, their risk attitudes lead them to opposite conclusions. Running his own Gingrich risk/reward analysis just last month, Professor Rahe revealed himself to be far more risk averse than Dr. Sowell.
Gingrich is, as I said, formidable. He took a pathetic, me-too caucus lead by the hapless Robert Michel, and he turned it around. He cornered the President of the United States and for a time made him do his bidding. But, of course, he also crashed and burned – and we cannot ignore the possibility (some would say, likelihood) that he would do so again.
It could be, however, that the peculiar time in which we live requires audacity and a man of formidable intellect, unsurpassed self-confidence, and uneven, erratic temperament with an impressive record of uniting his party around a set of political principles and of leading it to victory in a tense, divisive national election....There really is something to think about here.
....In my judgment, none of them is even remotely close to being ideal, and no one currently in the race deserves our active support. In stating that -- if I had to decide today between the contenders Romney, Perry, and Gingrich, I would choose Romney -- I reserve the right to change my mind as I learn more about them...
Assuming you accept the characterization of Newt as formidable and brilliant, but uneven and possessing an erratic temperament, then whose conclusion—Dr. Sowell's or Dr. Rahe's—you're likely to favor comes down to your own risk attitude. The higher your propensity for risk in, say, your investment portfolio, the more likely you are to choose Gingrich as your candidate. But the more risk averse among us will err toward Romney, who's perceived to be the safer choice.
As for me—despite continuous findings that women are significantly more risk averse than men (which, come to think of it, could very well play a role in Gingrich's low favorability ratings among women)—I'm risk favorable, and I would tend to side with Thomas Sowell's conclusion.
But the collective appetite for risk among Republican primary voters? That's still anyone's guess.
- Comment (58)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
All I will say right now is that ObamaCare is your Berlin Wall and its a hill worth dying on. Half the week I'm leaning Sowell, the other half Rahe. I may not have a vote but Canada's largest trading partner remains the US and if you go down, so do we.
Mar '11
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Fortes fortuna iuvat!
Aug '10
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
How has risk-aversion worked out for Republicans post-Reagan?
Dec '10
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
I am very risk averse. I overplan everything I do. I drive the speed limit, follow at a safe distance, and I even come to complete stops at stop signs. However, in this particular time in history, I want to do whatever it takes, chance whatever risk is required to fix the nation. I cannot see Romney doing what needs to be done. I don't know if Newt can actually do what needs to be done, but I see a better chance of him at least trying.
Apr '11
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Can it come down to philosophy instead of risk aversion, Diane?
Rahe and Sowell see differences between Gingrich and Romney. I don't. They are both fundamentally statist. As Mark Steyn has written, Gingrich has made peace with Progressivism. Romney is a progressive.
Neither will reduce the size and scope of government. Only one candidate will do that, and he's not getting the nomination.
Don't vote or write in a candidate. This is the only choice of a principled conservative, IMHO.
Edited on January 25, 2012 at 9:42pmRe: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
The risk-aversion candidate got the Republican nomination last time. The result? Our own 1964: Obama's "New Foundation" and the evolving global meltdown, each reinforcing the other, both gathering speed with implacable force.
The "safe" candidate, focusing solely on jobs and competence, is likely to lose if the economy continues to labor slowly ahead from here until November. Even if he wins, President Competence is likely to be found standing at the tiller, trimming the sails as the ship of state is swamped by a sudden wind shift, burdened by $16 trillion in sovereign debt accumulating at $140 billion each month.
No, the "risky" guy is actually the safer choice right now. Only bold action can galvanize the public. Only someone without fear of alienating the usual web of fixers running the conveyor-belt to high office can fight Leviathan and have any hope of saving us from financial Armageddon.
Apr '11
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Jeff Younger: Can it come down to philosophy instead of risk aversion, Diane?
Rahe and Sowell see differences between Gingrich and Romney. I don't. They are both fundamentally statist. As Mark Steyn has written, Gingrich has made peace with Progressivism. Romney is a progressive.
Neither will reduce the size and scope of government. Only one candidate will do that, and he's not getting the nomination.
Don't vote or write in a candidate. This is the only choice of a principled conservative, IMHO. · 3 minutes ago
Edited 2 minutes ago
Since that could only result in more Obama, I will just have to be unprincipled.
Aug '10
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
I view this race somewhat like the old game show "Let's Make a Deal". While it's true we are not exactly sure what lies behind the door marked Romney we can be sure of what lies behind the door marked Gingrich - 4 more years of Obama.
Newt has about as much chance of being elected president as my Vikings have of winning the Superbowl this year (or next year for that matter!).
Is there a door #3?
Jun '11
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
IMO, Prof. Sowell abstracts away at least two obvious issues w/ Newt.
BTW, I can take plenty of beta in my investment portfolio. But I only dedicate small portions to flyers...
Apr '11
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
What's bad about Obama? Obamacare. Crazy science-fiction green energy schemes. GM "investment". Both candidates have a long record of supporting those kinds of crazy things, too. Remember Gingrich's space mirrors? Romenycare?
There is a longer game than four more years of Obama.
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Jeff Younger: Can it come down to philosophy instead of risk aversion, Diane?
Rahe and Sowell see differences between Gingrich and Romney. I don't. They are both fundamentally statist. As Mark Steyn has written, Gingrich has made peace with Progressivism. Romney is a progressive.
Neither will reduce the size and scope of government. Only one candidate will do that, and he's not getting the nomination.
Don't vote or write in a candidate. This is the only choice of a principled conservative, IMHO. · 10 minutes ago
Since when is Obama a principled conservative?
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Jeff Younger
There is a longer game than four more years of Obama. · 1 minute ago
We can have that debate next. But many of us don't know if this country can truly survive another 4 years of Obama.
Nov '11
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
I've almost talked myself into supporting Gingrich, largely because of his uneven, erratic temperament. Not that I'm convinced he'd be more likely to beat Obama (he might, but I'm not convinced). Not that I think he'd make a great President. Not that I think he'd be good for the GOP, or have coattails down the ticket.
I'm just afraid that things in D.C. are so fouled up that incremental change will never get things turned around. We need passionate competence, but erratic will have to do.
What's the worst that could happen? Newt looses to Obama, or else makes a hash of things so that the all Republicans are politically damaged. In other words, Democrats win some more elections. That'd accelerate the decline. But if we can't reverse the decline, let's accelerate it and be done, not stretch it out just long enough to dump it on our kids and grandkids.
A President Gingrich may not change a thing. He might be co-opted within the first 100 days.
But maybe not. I can't say that about Romney.
Oct '10
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
For the last couple of months, I've been thinking about the “Gingrich as Churchill” analogy, and increasingly I find fewer and fewer flaws with it. Disgraced due to disasters, distrusted from changes in allegiance (at least Newt didn't change parties—twice), given to harebrained schemes (read the memos in his own history of World War II [aerial mines?]), and all the rest, and yet he proved the one to rally a nation which could have so easily believed itself beaten.
I worry about how early this contest may be decided. In a parliamentary system, it only took hours for the leadership of Britain to pass from Chamberlain to Churchill. The U.S. may be stuck in January 2013 with a chief executive chosen almost a year before in very different circumstances.
Still, I'd go with guy with the intellect and grasp of history to cope with unanticipated circumstances, even if there's a bit of flakiness under the bonnet.
Mar '11
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Diane Ellis, Ed.
But many of us don't know if this country can truly survive another 4 years of Obama. · 1 minute ago
Claptrap.
Oct '10
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Gingrich is definitely a progressive, but I don't think he's necessarily committed to statism.
If, in Gingrich's estimation, progress can best be achieved by an unprecedented slashing of government programs, employees, a 'smaller government, bigger citizen', then it's very possible that's the progress he'll pursue.
I actually think Gingrich could potentially enact more of Ron Paul's agenda, if he were convinced it was the right thing to do, than Ron Paul could, because Ron Paul is not a great politician.
Nov '11
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Fricosis Guy: IMO, Prof. Sowell abstracts away at least two obvious issues w/ Newt.
· 8 minutes ago
My fear is that the right side of Romney's curve doesn't quite reach the origin.
Feb '11
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
I would be surprised if with the people running for President, Americans did not conclude to re-elect Obama and vote for Republicans for House and Senate races. In other words, deja vu 1996. Why trust either one.
Apr '11
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Terry Mott:
What's the worst that could happen? Newt looses to Obama, or else makes a hash of things so that the all Republicans are politically damaged. In other words, Democrats win some more elections. That'd accelerate the decline. But if we can't reverse the decline, let's accelerate it and be done, not stretch it out just long enough to dump it on our kids and grandkids.
The main reason I am so opposed to Newt is I think that , in addition to blowing a winnable Presidential election, he could do real damage down the ballot. People talk about Romney not energizing the base, but going into October down 10 points tends to depress the base also. If Obama is to win, I want him checked by as large a force in Congress as Republicans can muster.
I have had the same "let's accelerate the decline" thoughts that you have had, but I just don't think I can stand the thought of Obama being validated with four more years. And If the crash does come quickly, I would much rather have any Republican in charge than Obama.
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Casey
Diane Ellis, Ed.
But many of us don't know if this country can truly survive another 4 years of Obama. · 1 minute ago
Claptrap. · 19 minutes ago
Well, the land mass will still be here. But the landscape of SCOTUS will change, and for the worse. ObamaCare will go into full effect, and will be with for eternity. And we will take some pretty huge leaps toward fiscal collapse.