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 (4)
Comments :
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Tom Lindholtz:
To Jeff the Younger, I do believe Newt would attempt to get a full repeal. I doubt that Mitt would. Of course, for either, the composition of the House and Senate is the deciding factor. · 44 minutes ago
I agree with Tom on this point (and not just because of his flattering remarks, either). I don't have full confidence that Newt would get a repeal, but I believe that we would attempt to in earnest. I doubt Romney would make the attempt at all.
Aug '10
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Yeah, but:
Mar '11
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Anon
And if Republicans win Old People will starve, Single Mothers won't be able to afford healthcare for their Babies, and the Rich will own us lock, stock, and barrel.
Good Ricochet applause line but, IMHO, overstatement undermines the message.
Casey, you may not have noticed, but you're on the wrong side of the looking glass. But, while you're there, pick up a hat for yourself, and say hello to Alice and the bunny for me. · 2 minutes ago
"'It's too late to correct it,' said the Red Queen: 'when you've once said a thing, that fixes it, and you must take the consequences.'"
Jul '10
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
There's no way to substantiate this based upon his time in office or programs proposed in his platform. This talk is the GOP Establishment trying to get the Republican Base to not vote for Gingrich. To wit
1. He wants to balance the budget (which he did as Speaker of the House), pay down the debt, and cut capital gains tax to zero. He wants a flat tax of 15%
2. He is solidly Pro-Life
3. He wants to repeal RobamaCare.
4. He is Pro-2nd Amendement.
5. He is solid on Foreign Policy.
That's pretty damn conservative.
You can nibble at the edges, but that's true of any conservative (besides me).
Nov '11
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Jeff Younger
Because, on the facts, Obama's foreign policy toward Iran isn't much different that Bush's or the policies favored by Romney and Newt. Now, Obama's foreign policy towards Europe, that's quite different. · 1 hour ago
Edited 1 hour ago
Agree about Bush, but this not about Bush. Newt and Romney seem much stronger on Iran. Here, for instance, is Newt's position. You may or may not agree with it, but it certainly is not in agreement with the president's policy.
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 hours ago
Edited 3 hours ago
Actually, Rahe does not see much difference ideologically. See Two Peas in a Pod. They are, however, quite different in temperament, and Rahe thinks that this matters. His suspicion is that Tom Sowell agrees. Rahe is just a bit less willing to play The Wild Card. Right now he intends to hold his nose and vote for The Chameleon. If he had his druthers, he would go for Paul Ryan or for Mitch Daniels (with links to earlier posts). But he recognizes that beggars cannot be choosers and that the men best situated to take on the challenge have let us down.
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Frozen Chosen: 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? · 3 hours ago
A brokered convention.
Dec '10
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Paul A. Rahe
But he recognizes that beggars cannot be choosers and that the men best situated to take on the challenge have let us down. · 1 minute ago
Does their letting us down indicate they are inherently not suited to the task?
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
wmartin
Terry Mott:
What's the worst that could happen?
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. · 2 hours ago
I take it that you have not read the recent polls.
Sep '10
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Diane Ellis, Ed.
I never did like gazpacho. · 2 hours ago
Gingrich Gazpacho has an alliterative appeal.
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Michael Tee
There's no way to substantiate this based upon his time in office or programs proposed in his platform. This talk is the GOP Establishment trying to get the Republican Base to not vote for Gingrich. To wit
1. He wants to balance the budget (which he did as Speaker of the House), pay down the debt, and cut capital gains tax to zero. He wants a flat tax of 15%
2. He is solidly Pro-Life
3. He wants to repeal RobamaCare.
4. He is Pro-2nd Amendement.
5. He is solid on Foreign Policy.
That's pretty damn conservative.
You can nibble at the edges, but that's true of any conservative (besides me). · 21 minutes ago
And where, Michael Tee, did he stand in 2007 -- on the individual mandate, global warming, cap and trade, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
The King Prawn
Paul A. Rahe
But he recognizes that beggars cannot be choosers and that the men best situated to take on the challenge have let us down. · 1 minute ago
Does their letting us down indicate they are inherently not suited to the task? · 9 minutes ago
It might. It really might.
Jul '10
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
It's like being a shark. You have the remoras. They're difficult, but here goes:
1. That bastion of liberalism, the Hertiage Foundation came up with the Individual Mandate. A lot of Republicans stood for the Individual Mandate. He wants to overturn ObamaCare now. He didn't make the road map for it, and think it can't be repealed.
2. As a scientist who works at the edges of this field, I am dubious, but plenty of really smart people I know who work in the field are not. As a scientist, I cannot say it's settled; only the Laws of Thermodynamics are settled.
3. Cap and Trade. His position evolved to the point that he was solidly against it by 2008. In some circles, that would be called wisdom.
4. Fannie and Freddie. Buying the argument of the left, you want to ignore that Barney Frank is the culprit for Fannie and Freddie, not Newt Gingrich.
You can have 2007. I'll take the 1978-1998...
Jul '10
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Which candidate raised the top income tax rate from 7 percent to 10 percent, the sales tax rate went from 3 percent to 5 percent, the cigarette tax was increased from 3 cents to 10 cents per pack, the alcohol tax was raised from $1.50 to $2 per gallon, the bank and corporate tax rate went up from 5.5 percent to 7 percent, and the inheritance tax rose from a range of 2 percent to 10 percent to a range of 3 percent to 15 percent and then went on to raise taxes another 3 times in his state?
Which candidate signed one of the early permissive state-level abortion laws and set the stage for other states to follow?
Which candidate said: “Let him have the Fortune 500, I want our campaign to stand for Main Street, not Wall Street. I want us to stand for the worker, the shopkeeper, the entrepreneur, and the small businessman.”
Dose this statement sound remarkably like Occupy Wall Street?
That candidate? Ronald Reagan.
Purity is for Ivory Soap and Sigma-Aldrich chemicals.
Edited on Jan 25 at 5:15pmJan '11
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Fricosis Guy:
Distrbution of outcomes: I grant that Newt's "best' is better than Romney's "best", but what is the probability he will reach that "best"? How about the other end of the curve: what if most of the likely outcomes for Newt clustered on the left side of the tail? I think Newt's curve is skewed much further left than Romney's.
My thoughts, almost verbatim. IMHO, There's a 1/3 chance Gingrich would be a great president, but a 2/3 chance he'd be a disaster. In constrast, I'd say Romney's got even odds of being decent or disappointing.
Count me in the Rahe camp.
Edited on Jan 25 at 8:42pmApr '11
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Except Romney won't fight. If the democrats win in 2014 he'll do the same thing Bush did and embrace the resurrection of Nancy Pelosi. Since he'll be elected over the objections of conservatives his natural governing coalition is left of center. A left of center republican can do more damage in 4 years than Obama can. This also assumes he could ever be elected in the first place. Also I fail to see why a dispirited base means down ballot success for the republicans. The whole premise that Romney doesn't do as much damage down ballot as Gingrich could be a bit of a stretch. If Romney runs the general strategy he appears to be contemplating. I'll vote if the weather is nice and the polling place is on the right side of the street on the way home. I suspect that I won't be alone in that.
Sep '10
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Tom Meyer
Fricosis Guy:
Distrbution of outcomes: I grant that Newt's "best' is better than Romney's "best", but what is the probability he will reach that "best"? How about the other end of the curve: what if most of the likely outcomes for Newt clustered on the left side of the tail? I think Newt's curve is skewed much further left than Romney's.
My thoughts, almost verbatim. IMHO, There's a 1/3 chance Gingrich would be a great president, but a 2/3 chance he'd be a disaster. In constrast, I'd say Romney's got even odds of being decent or disappointing.
Count me in the Rahe camp. · 3 hours ago
Edited 1 hour ago
Its Thursday and I'm back in camp Rahe.
Apr '11
Re: Newt Gingrich: The Bettor's Choice
Michael Tee
There's no way to substantiate this based upon his time in office or programs proposed in his platform. This talk is the GOP Establishment trying to get the Republican Base to not vote for Gingrich.
Do we get to consider as substantiation Gingrich's claim to be a realpolotik Wilsonian? And his admiration for FDR and TR? Or are those statements by Gingrich too far in the past to count?
I'd prefer he stay in the race rather than drop out; he makes everyone better, himself included.