Whither Newt?
A few months ago, I appeared as a guest on the main podcast right as Newt Gingrich’s burgeoning presidential campaign was at its lowest ebb. Between a massive staff exodus, a bombastic press release, and a candidate who was taking a Mediterranean cruise when he should have been hitting the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire, Newt was presenting a lot of ripe targets – and I took my fair share of shots. He deserves a fairer hearing, however, than he got during that tragicomic period in his bid for the White House. Hopefully, that’s what follows.
As many of our readers know, I used to write for Newt and I hold his intellect, his creativity, and his abilities as a communicator in the highest regard. I also know, however, that his intemperance is often his undoing, as was the case in those early days of the campaign.
Now that we’re a little further down the road in the presidential race, it’s becoming obvious that the assets I delineated above are earning the former speaker a renewed respect in the hearts of many conservatives. His drawbacks, however, continue to leave most of them cold when it comes to the idea of pulling the lever for him come primary season.
This has led to a sentiment – which seems to grow in stature with every debate – that the next Republican president should take pains to find a role for Speaker Gingrich in his White House. That presents a difficulty, however. Newt is a man of such capacity and ambition that’s it difficult to imagine him being satisfied – or particularly useful – in most posts that a president could offer him.
With that in mind, two ideas present themselves.
The first, which would likely be a waste of his talents (but is an interesting intellectual exercise nonetheless) would be to make him Secretary of the Interior. Bear with me on this.
It’s often forgotten that when Newt was a college professor he taught courses in two disciplines: history and environmental studies. He's been a committed and ardent proponent of market-friendly conservation policies for decades (He even wrote a book a few years back entitled “A Contract With the Earth,” on precisely those themes). He does, however, have a tendency to slip over onto the dark side on these issues from time to time, as best illustrated by this proud moment in his career. Still, for someone with interests and expertise in both our nation’s past and the environment, being the steward of the cabinet department that has responsibility for the National Park Service isn’t a bad gig. Newt could essentially be the next administration’s roving professor, reminding the nation what's great -- and worth preserving -- about America.
The second possibility -- and the place where you really put Newt if you want to get the highest and best use out of him – is in the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives, an entity that was created in the Bush Administration as a mechanism for Karl Rove. The OSI essentially operates as an in-house think tank, charged with generating big policy ideas for the administration. This would fit Newt’s skill set especially well, would keep him from any embarrassments with the press (due to its relatively low profile), and would allow him to play a significant role in shaping the next administration.
There’s one caveat though: you’d have to staff against Newt. By this I mean hiring staffers whose strengths compensate for his weaknesses. Newt’s offices are notorious for having filing cabinets full of bold, innovative ideas … that were never acted on. Thus, he needs a staff of hard-working, motivated policy wonks able to translate his mental starbursts into workable public policy. Executed effectively, this could lead to Newt being one of the intellectual engines of the next administration. That’s not the presidency. But it’s not a bad consolation prize either.
- Comment (34)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Whither Newt?
Secretary of Education.
Oct '10
Re: Whither Newt?
:-) So, in writing a mea culpa lamenting your too-quick dismissal of your former boss, you manage to pen his political obituary, relegating him to a Cabinet dust bin or White House squirrel hole. I’m sure he’s grateful.
Mar '11
Re: Whither Newt?
Let me caveat this by saying that my wife is not letting me run for President. However, if she would, I'd have Newt as my White House Chief of Staff. His brain is too valuable to be allowed to wither in a cabinet post. While I'm at it, here's the rest of the team:
Secretary of State: Joe Lieberman (one word: Israel)
Secretary of Defense: Sam Nunn or a clone thereof
Secretary of the Treasury: Phil Gramm
Attorney General: Andy McCarthy
Fed Chairman: Herman Cain
National Security Director: John Bolton
All other cabinet departments: Nobody, I'm getting rid of all of them
Re: Whither Newt?
Well, I wouldn't quite call it a mea culpa. I stand by what I said at the time. That was Newt at his worst. But his upside is too valuable to leave on the sidelines.
As for this being an obit, I'd argue that it's much better to play a meaningful role in a presidential administration than to continue as a pundit/elder statesman hybrid. And I also think Newt wants one more shot at public service. He should be given it -- but his unique makeup makes finding the right spot difficult.
Sep '10
Re: Whither Newt?
I still remember Henry Hyde's criticism of Newt that you couldn't combine serious history with Toffler's Future Shock. Henry had an instinctive distrust of Newt's peculiar modernist fusion of historical vision and new age sensibility.
Jan '11
Re: Whither Newt?
Great article! Great suggestions! Newt has certainly been the "adult" present at the debates. I'm old enough to have been active in Republican politics when Newt was Speaker and those were truly grand times. His eloquence in speaking is almost a lost art. And he speaks from the heart -- no teleprompter and no notes. What a brilliant mind.
Oct '10
Re: Whither Newt?
Troy Senik: Well, I wouldn't quite call it a mea culpa. I stand by what I said at the time. That was Newt at his worst. But his upside is too valuable to leave on the sidelines.
As for this being an obit, I'd argue that it's much better to play a meaningful role in a presidential administration than to continue as a pundit/elder statesman hybrid. And I also think Newt wants one more shot at public service. He should be given it -- but his unique makeup makes finding the right spot difficult. · Sep 16 at 8:31pm
In 2008, when asked by my lovable but crazy-@$$ liberal brother who my ideal candidate is, I shocked him with an instantaneous “Newt.” The man has more good ideas in a weekend then most do in a lifetime. Forgive the cliché, but he “gets it” on so many levels. I was depressed when his campaign launched so disastrously—kindergarten mistakes from a guy so seemingly on his game. What I started to realize is there’s a Greek tragedy brewing inside that intellectual powerhouse. And that his time passed in the 90’s. Sadly—for all of us.
Dec '10
Re: Whither Newt?
While I agree that Newt is brilliant and the country would be blessed if he put his mind to work in public service, the problem with Newt is bi-polar. When he's at his worst we see what Troy was lamenting on the podcast. Unfortunately, even when he is firing on all cylinders, we still get endorsements of Ethanol subsidies and the other inevitable side effects of being so smart you think you can and government should solve the problems of the world. While it is not comparable in it's extent to Obama, it is of the same intellectual-elitist stripe.
What we need in a leader is not just brilliant ideas, but the restraint to keep one's ego checked by other's liberty.
Edited on Sep 16, 2011 at 9:26pmRe: Whither Newt?
By the way, for those who doubt the utility of Newt as a potential Secretary of the Interior, please see the following clips. Two instances of Newt at his best:
Edited on Sep 16, 2011 at 9:53pmFeb '11
Re: Whither Newt?
Newt for SecState. President Perry will set foreign policy and Newt will do what Powell and Condi seemingly often failed to do: aggressively implement the policy but in a way that is more indirect and intelligent than Perry would have thought to consider. Newt as SecState might well be more important than Perry as President. The State Department needs to be straightened out by Kissinger, part II.
Re: Whither Newt?
Troy, many thanks for posting these videos. I just spent several hours at a local tavern with Blue Yeti, so it's a good thing you didn't also post the Gingrich '12 fundraising URL, or I'd be there right now handing over my credit card info.
Newt is fantastic. He's a terrific communicator and a great advocate for the large umbrella of conservative causes. I want him at every debate between now and, say, March, speaking clearly and forcefully against the left wing nonsense factory, and advocating for conservative, free-market solutions.
I don't want him in the Oval Office, though, which is maybe a failure of my imagination, maybe a failure of the Gingrich temperament. What I want, though, is for conservatives of all stripes to figure out a way to make sure people like Newt (and Sarah, and -- yes! -- Jon Huntsman) have a thoughtful platform to make their thoughts public. Would I vote for Newt for president? No. Would I vote for a guy who publicly allies himself with Newt? You bet.
These videos are a great example of thoughtful, persuasive conservative leadership.
Aug '11
Re: Whither Newt?
Character counts. Perhaps it's a pity that a man as brilliant as Newt Gingrich should be shunned by the Republican electorate because of his personal failings, but it would be even more of a pity if we've come to the point where we ignore such failings.
Character does count. Honor, decency and fidelity do count. When they cease to count, we'll become a nation governed by the likes of Anthony Wiener, John Edwards and, yes, Newt Gingrich.
Mar '11
Re: Whither Newt?
Troy: intriguing thought experiment. A couple of questions:
1) I like the Secretary of the Interior argument a lot, actually. But, if he's so strong on both environmental and energy issues, why not head the DOE?
2) OSI: How do we reconcile the creation of OSI with Obama's "Czars" phenomenon?
Aug '11
Re: Whither Newt?
I saw someone (I think maybe Jonah Goldberg in LF, but I forget) object to liberal use of Gingrichian as meaning new-moralism when really it's very much more Alvin Toffler futurism. I think this one puts Newt exactly where he'll be of most use.
Apr '11
Re: Whither Newt?
Newt is my first choice for VP. The next administration is going to need fresh ideas and Gingrich is not only a fountain of ideas (some of them good) but he excels at creating the talking points, PowerPoint Presentations, Books & Videos, and dynamic speeches to bring those ideas to the forefront of the public mind. A President needs a good Number Two Man acting as head cheerleader and backing him up. Does anyone think that a "Presidential Debt Commission," chaired by a VP Gingrich would not have come up with a plan and a program? (And a book and a video?)
As for the Interior Dept. I'd say Sarah Palin because she actually knows something about exploring for, drilling, and developing oil resources.
Re: Whither Newt?
Troy, I agree. Newt should be in the administration. So should Herman Cain. But the Secretary of the Treasury should be John Taylor from Stanford.
Sep '10
Re: Whither Newt?
It is interesting that the almost automatic assumption is that Newt needs to be working inside the government to have the most positive effect on the country. May I suggest that his ideas, intellect and communication skills are impressive when compared to most politicians? This however may not be true when compared with a group of successful entrepreneurs. His talent may be in recognizing new trends and grabbing hold of them. If what is desired is a large intrusive activist government Newt would make an ideal cog for the apparatus. If however what is desire is limited government that fosters maximum liberty he would be more valuable outside the government. I would probably be inclined to support Newt before I would support Romney or Perry. He is certainly not the ideal person to be president, but having a flawed Newt would be better than one more typical GOP go along to get along crony.
Nov '10
Re: Whither Newt?
Thanks for posting that portrait, by the way: just the right amount of creepiness.
I will be the first to concede that Newt has his uses. He is nimble in speech, and actually has a grasp of the issues. But while sleazebags are a dime a dozen in the senate and house (what's the occasional Newt when Teddy reigned for so long?), given the symbolic functions a president must serve, I would prefer somebody with less baggage. A discreet advisory post would be suitable for him. If it didn't suit his outsized ego, that would be his problem.
Nov '10
Re: Whither Newt?
You say Newt is occasionally undone by his intemperance. No, it’s his intellectual and political confusion that gets him. It’s cozing up to Nancy Pelosi on global warming, saying dumb things like “the age of Ronald Reagan is over,” his attempts to appease Bill Clinton to the point that he got rolled and Clinton made him look ridiculous, and his completely idiotic belief that if he just admitted one ethics violation, even though he wasn’t even guilty of it, all the Democrats' bogus ethics charges would go away. Instead that one admission did him in. These things made his supporters wonder what in the hell was wrong with him. When he failed to offer any explanation or to recover from this stupor, they abandoned him and he ended up resigning from his House seat in defeat. That was the end of his career. He’s just a novelty from the past now.
Lately, we’ve heard the old Newt back in good form. It’s good. It’s wonderful, in fact. It’s also way too late.
Edited on Sep 17, 2011 at 7:24amJan '11
Re: Whither Newt?
The fun of Newt Gingrich is that his ideas immediately strike us as common sense. As I recall, during the immigration debate, he rebutted the point that we can't find the illegals. Newt's argument wasn't a theory-laden quilt of speculations. It was common sense.
Newt doesn't always think like a politician ... which is a blessing and a curse. A politician's instincts sometimes keep him out of trouble, and Newt can be remarkably tone deaf. If you look at the whole Gingrich-Clinton government shutdown, not as the Narrative but looking at what really happened, Gingrich doesn't come off so badly. Remember, Clinton shut down the government when he vetoed proposals, but in the public mind, Gingrich threw some sort of switch to turn the lights out. Clinton beat him because Clinton played the media better - where perception often trumps reality.
The point is that Gingrich comes off as so different because he lapses into common sense ... and we see so little of that elsewhere.
Remember Bull Durham when Kevin Costner teaches Tim Robbins to offer cliches instead of answering questions? Newt answers questions.