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:
Aug '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Mothership_Greg
Well-played, sir. I'm not old enough to know anything about Elliott Abrams, but his piece on Gingrich struck me as a hit job - not enough context was given for some of the words he attributed to Gingrich. Conservatives shouldn't engage in sound-bite wars - sadly, that is what most campaign commercials amount to. Tom Coburn's criticism of Gingrich is valid - but it's something Gingrich supporters are aware of (Newt is erratic, and doesn't always act appropriately when people challenge him). Romney supporters - be principled in your criticism of Gingrich, and maybe I'll switch my vote before the primary. To Santorum. · 5 minutes ago
From what I've read of Coburn's criticisms he is illustrating how Newt was ready to throw fiscal principles overboard for political revenge - not that he was simply acting inappropriately.
Evidently back in his Speaker days Newt wanted to increase funding for a House committee investigating Clinton when everyone had already agreed to cut funding for the committees. When the House members voted the funding increase down Newt went all postal on 'em and they in turn told him to stick it.
Aug '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
From Elliot Abram's NRinO piece:
Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”
Neville F. Chamberlain! Somewhere in Palo Alto Peter's head just exploded. Oh, never mind, he took it in stride.
And this unrepentant prodigal expects Reagan's robe and a feast.
The hypocrisy and dissonance are staggering.
Edited on January 26, 2012 at 7:09pmMay '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
George Savage: Okay, how about an easier question for all of us to answer: Who would you prefer to be captain of your cruise ship after it hits the rocks, Mitt or Newt?
Anyone who isn't immediately voting for Romney on this question needs some counseling. · 1 hour ago
But being President is not at all like being a captain of a cruise ship, particularly when it hits the rocks.
It's also not like being CEO. You don't get to order the whole government around (yes, I know companies have boards and shareholders, etc., but it's still vastly different from government).
Sep '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
I'm surprised that no one made the obvious Newtrino joke.
Jul '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
George Savage
Margaret Ball
George Savage
I am experiencing something very unusual for me, very quantum mechanical: I'm uncertain. · · 2 hours ago
The place where quantum mechanics loses me is the assertion that a particle takes not one path from A to B but all possible paths.
Margaret, you have eminent company. The late physicist Richard Feynman once observed, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." · 2 hours ago
Some of us more than others. I think Margaret is misreading the quantum description of an electron. We have a pretty good idea where electrons are in atoms and molecules.
Jul '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Squishy Blue RINO: From Elliot Abram's NRinO piece:
Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”
Neville F. Chamberlain! Somewhere in Palo Alto Peter's head just exploded. Oh, never mind, he took it in stride.
And this unrepentant prodigal expects Reagan's robe and a feast.
The hypocrisy and dissonance are staggering. · 15 minutes ago
Edited 10 minutes ago
Funny, Jeffrey Lord doesn't remember Eliot Abrams saying that.
Aug '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Michael Tee
Squishy Blue RINO: From Elliot Abram's NRinO piece:
Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”
Neville F. Chamberlain! Somewhere in Palo Alto Peter's head just exploded. Oh, never mind, he took it in stride.
And this unrepentant prodigal expects Reagan's robe and a feast.
The hypocrisy and dissonance are staggering. · 15 minutes ago
Edited 10 minutes ago
Funny, Jeffrey Lord doesn't remember Eliot Abrams saying that. · 12 minutes ago
I don't follow, Abrams is not quoted at all. Newt's statement is public.
Apr '11
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
"it is crystal clear that in the narrowing choice between Gingrich and Mitt Romney, it is decidedly Gingrich whose "work product" as a card-carrying member of the Reagan Revolution is repeatedly marked with the contributions of the type that landed him in Michael Evans book of photographs of the most important players of the Reagan era.
The kind of contributions, the kind of vision and the kind of boldness that won him the respect and votes of South Carolina voters across the board.
Hayward also notes that in one instance towards the end of the administration, Gingrich discussed complaints about things left undone. Writes Hayward of the president Jack Kemp fondly nicknamed the "Oldest and Wisest":
Reagan put his arm around the young Georgia Congressman and said in his typically gentle fashion, "Well, some things you're just going to have to do after I'm gone."
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/24/reagans-young-lieutenant/print
Nov '11
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Squishy Blue RINO
Michael Tee
Squishy Blue RINO: From Elliot Abram's NRinO piece:
Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”
Neville F. Chamberlain! Somewhere in Palo Alto Peter's head just exploded. Oh, never mind, he took it in stride.
And this unrepentant prodigal expects Reagan's robe and a feast.
The hypocrisy and dissonance are staggering. · 15 minutes ago
Edited 10 minutes ago
Funny, Jeffrey Lord doesn't remember Eliot Abrams saying that. · 12 minutes ago
I don't follow, Abrams is not quoted at all. Newt's statement is public. · 13 minutes ago
Can someone please provide more context for the Neville Chamberlain quote?
Nov '11
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Tom Coburn says this in his book:
He also says:
Apr '11
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Send us Newt!
"Electability? The gender gap? Two very liberal women friends of mine who voted for Obama have come up to me recently and said they like and would vote for Newt. Why? Because he’s “so damn smart”!
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/289301
This is exactly my experience. The only positive statements regarding GOP candidates I have garnered from my large group of liberal friends have been positive remarks about Gingrich. They admire his intellect, his confidence and his eloquence.
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Chris Deleon
George Savage: Okay, how about an easier question for all of us to answer: Who would you prefer to be captain of your cruise ship after it hits the rocks, Mitt or Newt?
Anyone who isn't immediately voting for Romney on this question needs some counseling. · 1 hour ago
But being President is not at all like being a captain of a cruise ship, particularly when it hits the rocks.
It's also not like being CEO. You don't get to order the whole government around (yes, I know companies have boards and shareholders, etc., but it's still vastly different from government). · 2 hours ago
Chris, my comment is an attempt to make your point. I'm acknowledging that Mitt Romney's boy scout character, combined with his steady managerial skills would be perfect in the context of airline pilot, space shuttle commander, or cruise ship captain.
It's working less well for him as prospective POTUS, so far.
Edited on January 26, 2012 at 9:22pmRe: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Fantastic! I can't believe I didn't think of that while I was imagining Newt as a peripatetic particle.
Mar '11
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Is the newt bashing starting to unravel as the coordinated smear that it is?
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/01/video-of-newt-bashing-reagan-is-bogus.html
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
DocStu: Is the newt bashing starting to unravel as the coordinated smear that it is?
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/01/video-of-newt-bashing-reagan-is-bogus.html · 24 minutes ago
So perhaps I'm being duped into doubting Newt? Wouldn't be the first time, I suppose.
Time will tell.
Sep '10
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
George Savage
DocStu: Is the newt bashing starting to unravel as the coordinated smear that it is?
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/01/video-of-newt-bashing-reagan-is-bogus.html · 24 minutes ago
So perhaps I'm being duped into doubting Newt? Wouldn't be the first time, I suppose.
Time will tell. · 8 minutes ago
Its Chinatown.
Apr '11
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Chris Deleon
George Savage: Okay, how about an easier question for all of us to answer: Who would you prefer to be captain of your cruise ship after it hits the rocks, Mitt or Newt?
Anyone who isn't immediately voting for Romney on this question needs some counseling. · 1 hour ago
But being President is not at all like being a captain of a cruise ship, particularly when it hits the rocks.
It's also not like being CEO. You don't get to order the whole government around (yes, I know companies have boards and shareholders, etc., but it's still vastly different from government). · 5 hours ago
If only we had a candidate who combined the CEO skills with the experience of governing as government executive!
Apr '11
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
George Savage
DocStu: Is the newt bashing starting to unravel as the coordinated smear that it is?
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/01/video-of-newt-bashing-reagan-is-bogus.html ·
So perhaps I'm being duped into doubting Newt? Wouldn't be the first time, I suppose.
Time will tell. ·
It's worth watching more of the video. It's a particularly strong moment of criticism that gets quoted, but Newt is, throughout, advocating Bush avoiding Reagan and tacking to the center. It was during a time that he was emphasizing his liberal/ moderate credentials in a bid to get power within the party. This is another good example of his Rockefeller mentioning interviews at the time, also noting that he was seconded for whip by Olympia Snowe.
It's kind of unfair to dwell on; although he'd been a moderate earlier, he'd swung somewhat to the right in the early 80s, and would swing back to the right shortly after this. His work for Rockefeller and his angry moderate stuff in '88-'89 are just phases in an, ahem, dynamic political life, but there are continuities. For example: trips to Mars and GSEs.
Apr '11
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
Viator: Send us Newt!
"Electability? The gender gap? Two very liberal women friends of mine who voted for Obama have come up to me recently and said they like and would vote for Newt. Why? Because he’s “so damn smart”!
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/289301
This is exactly my experience. The only positive statements regarding GOP candidates I have garnered from my large group of liberal friends have been positive remarks about Gingrich. They admire his intellect, his confidence and his eloquence. · 4 hours ago
I know a lot of people with these anecdotes. It's hard to believe that Newt so consistently loses in head to head polls with Obama, while Mitt remains ahead (once enthusiasm is taken into account, competitive before then).
Dec '11
Re: The Gingrich Uncertainty Principle
It depends exactly where you stand on particular issues in my opinion. Also you need to determine the fervor at which they will pursue their particular goals(Ron Paul and Santorum seem to possess the most fervor). Then you need to think of ability and the likelihood that they can achieve their goals if they are elected(Gingrich and Romney seem to possess the most ability). Electability is also an issue(personally though I think they all have a good chance of beating Obama). I think most of the issues of deciding a candidate seem to come from this. Fervor is important because if they have it they won't sway from what they said in the campaign(i.e. Santorum will probably never vote for an abortion bill even with a political gun to his head). Candidates can have different levels of fervor about different issues though. Ability is important because you want them to actually be able to accomplish what they said. Electability is important because well you want them to win to get into office. That probably doesn't help though so yeah your welcome.