The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
In 1927 the physicist Werner Heisenberg famously postulated that an observer can know either the position or momentum of a subatomic particle, but not both simultaneously.
The position of Newt Gingrich, political particle, is generally the object of voter measurement--right now securely ensconced in the orbit of the tea party--but Gingrich's momentum is the fascinating unknown, indeed unknowable, variable. In the past, we have been unable to predict where he is headed politically, and we therefore have no sure basis to predict where he is headed next.
This wasn't supposed to take quantum mechanics to figure out.
The campaign narrative of my dreams runs this way: Newt Gingrich, prodigal conservative, hero of the Contract With America, returns from his K Street exile, donning the mantle of Reagan and offering a limited government alternative to a public weary of temporizing ratifiers of Marxist thought. Sweeping the pretenders before him, securing a nomination thought unattainable, Newt swiftly and surely defeats a billion-dollar Obama campaign mistakenly calibrated for battle against a private equity executive likely to be found in a defensive crouch.
It's a great narrative. If I were a liberal I'd stop here. The dream shall never die, right? Unfortunately, as John Adams pointed out, facts are stubborn things.
And the fact is, many true-blue conservatives with a great deal of first-hand Gingrichian lore at their command are taking us to school about our favorite lapsed history professor. The title of American Spectator founder R. Emmett Tyrell's piece in the Sun today, "William Jefferson Gingrich," pretty much says it all.
After Newt’s and Bill’s disastrous experiences in government both went on to create empires, Bill in philanthropy and cheap thought, Newt in public policy and cheap thought. As an ex-president Bill has wrung up an unprecedented $75.6 million since absconding from the White House with White House loot and shameless pardons. I do not know how much Newt has amassed, but he got between $1.6 million to $1.8 million from Freddie Mac, and he lobbied for Medicare Part B while receiving, according to the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney, “Big Bucks Pushing Corporate Welfare.” Now after a lifetime in Washington he is promoting himself as an outsider.
Meanwhile, over at National Review, Elliott Abrams, an assistant secretary of state in the Reagan Administration, observes that Gingrich, who constantly compares himself to Reagan today, was less complimentary at the time.
Gingrich scorned Reagan’s speeches, which moved a party and then a nation, because “the president of the United States cannot discipline himself to use the correct language.” In Afghanistan, Reagan’s policy was marked by “impotence [and] incompetence.” Thus Gingrich concluded as he surveyed five years of Reagan in power that “we have been losing the struggle with the Soviet empire.” Reagan did not know what he was doing, and “it is precisely at the vision and strategy levels that the Soviet empire today is superior to the free world.”
There are two things to be said about these remarks. The first is that as a visionary, Gingrich does not have a very impressive record. The Soviet Union was beginning to collapse, just as Reagan had believed it must. The expansion of its empire had been thwarted. The policies Gingrich thought so weak and indeed “pathetic” worked, and Ronald Reagan turned out to be a far better student of history and politics than Gingrich.
Adding fuel to the foreign policy fire, former UN Ambassador John Bolton, no establishment moderate, has endorsed Mitt Romney, even though Newt earlier promised to appoint Bolton secretary of state in a Gingrich Administration.
I have previously criticized Mitt Romney for distancing himself from "Reagan-Bush" during his 1994 race against Ted Kennedy. However, Newt arguably one-upped him by failing to support President Reagan when it mattered.
And of course, there's Ann Coulter's support for Mitt Romney to consider.
What to do? I am experiencing something very unusual for me, very quantum mechanical: I'm uncertain.
- Comment (63)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Apr '11
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
If you're looking at red meat endorsements, I'd like to add Justice Bork to the list of important views to consider.
May '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Why, oh why, do we care what Ann Coulter thinks?
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
That's two of us, George.
Aug '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Welcome to the club. I note that Heisenberg is the name that Walt White used in his dealings with Tuco in Breaking Bad. Now I know that ,but Salim's words are ringing in my ears this morning.
Jan '12
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
What to do, indeed. If somebody convinced me that Newt just can't win over independents/moderates and the only hope for beating Obama was to nominate Romney, I'd capitulate but in vast distaste. I wouldn't send Romney's campaign a dime before mid October and much less then than I would to Newt's.
Sep '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
I agree with everything you wrote George. Right now, Newt looks like the Master of Disaster and the captain of the ship in his very own Poseidon Adventure (an Irwin Allen production I may note) off the coast of Florida, heading to the head of the Warren Buffet line after tossing some red meat to the crowds in the form of a Ralph Kramden style Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore moonshot. If he has any more interviews like he did on Spanish language television, he'll be trying to convince us that someone from a rival campaign snarfed at least one scoop of strawberry ice cream from the Captain's quarters.
We're watching our very own version of The Biggest Loser and we're faced with the picking the guy who -- if he can't ever reboot -- causes the least damage to chances in the House and Senate races. Make mine a double.
Dec '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
The thing that really scares me is that Newt seems a plausible alternative to Romney. What does this say about Romney? I feel like the bully is asking the age old question: head or gut.
May '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Give Santorum another look, folks.
You may say, he doesn't have a chance. That's what we all thought about Gingrich, and really, almost each and every one of the candidates that have ridden this roller coaster at one point or another. When we break out of the mold that the latest poll numbers attempt to impose on our perceived options, we can change the poll numbers themselves.
We have a bunch of flawed candidates, including Santorum. What choice do we have other than to pick the one with the least issues?
Sep '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Chris Deleon: Give Santorum another look, folks.
You may say, he doesn't have a chance. That's what we all thought about Gingrich, and really, almost each and every one of the candidates that have ridden this roller coaster at one point or another. When we break out of the mold that the latest poll numbers attempt to impose on our perceived options, we can change the poll numbers themselves.
We have a bunch of flawed candidates, including Santorum. What choice do we have other than to pick the one with the least issues? · 1 minute ago
Happy Days aren't here again, and right now I'm waiting to hear what Stinky Pete has to say.
Jun '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
The difference between Gingrich and Romney is that Gingrich sees the bigger picture, because he's looking. How Gingrich reacts to seeing that bigger picture is sometimes up in the air, but at least he sees it. What is it that Romney sees? Polling.
May '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
The thing that saddens me is that this race is really being determined by money right now. Romney has it in spades; Gingrich has just enough to challenge him; and Santorum is being left out in the cold.
Is it too idealistic of me to hope that enough people would look at the candidates on their own merits and not based on ads paid for by people with a clear bias?
(And by extension, not based on poll numbers that reflect the decisions of others reacting to such ads?)
Edited on Jan 26 at 6:56amApr '11
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Nancy Reagan 1995: Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec_Nunb6izo
Nov '11
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Wouldn't it be nice if there were simple policy differences to choose between rather than playing guessing games about who we mistrust least?
Apart from the "baggage" my process of thinking went something like this:
1) Who's more likely to get elected? I don't quite buy the Great Debate Theory. Advantage Mitt.
2) If elected, who's more likely to repeal Obamacare? Advantage neither or very slightly Gingrich. I think Romney can do the math and figure out that no repeal = no reelection. Plus he's getting more aggressive and confident in going after Obamacare. I think that Newt would probably make the case against it more effectively, but I don't have any more confidence in his follow-through.
3) If elected, who's more likely to push for serious entitlement reform -- particularly Medicare? Advantage Romney. Newt blew this one.
Edited on Jan 26 at 7:00amMay '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Leigh: Thing is, it's a guessing game. Who do you mistrust least?
Apart from the "baggage" my process of thinking went something like this:
1) Who's more likely to get elected? I don't quite buy the Great Debate Theory. Advantage Mitt.
2) If elected, who's more likely to repeal Obamacare? Advantage neither or very slightly Gingrich. I think Romney can do the math and figure out that no repeal = no reelection. Plus he's getting more aggressive and confident in going after Obamacare. I think that Newt would probably make the case against it more effectively, but I don't have any more confidence in his follow-through.
3) If elected, who's more likely to push for serious entitlement reform -- particularly Medicare? Advantage Romney. Newt blew this one.
Excuse me, but there are still others in this race. And as we've seen before, with Newt himself, it's not too late for the tables to turn drastically. We lose when we lock ourselves down to just the two (current) frontrunners.
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Well, Drudge certainly seems to despise Newt. More than half of the stories on the Drudge Report as of this writing are negative Newt stories.
Nov '11
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Chris Deleon
Excuse me, but there are still others in this race. And as we've seen before, with Newt himself, it's not too late for the tables to turn drastically. We lose when we lock ourselves down to just the two (current) frontrunners. · 2 minutes ago
I'd much rather have a Santorum-Romney race, personally. It might be a campaign about actual issues. Unless Newt implodes very soon in a big way and his support goes to Santorum, my guess is it's too late.
Jul '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
<sigh>
Our own Peter Robinson had an answer to Eliot Abrams piece.
I think a good summation is found in the comments section of the article:
In addition, there's this and this and this.
May '11
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Me too, George. And I have to vote for one of these guys Tuesday.
Sep '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Just when you thought it was safe to back in the Florida water, this:
Its Bill. Man the lifeboats.
Jun '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Drudge is not an analyst. In his niche, he relies on access to people in the know. If you rely on that access, there's sometimes a price to pay. Maybe today's price is Newt's head on a plate.