Newt Gingrich is not a name you hear very often anymore. His brief, spectacular flameout was almost unnoticeable during the chaos of Monicagate, when a good chunk of the leadership of both parties went down in flames with him. You hear about Frist and DeLay, and powerful Christian activists like James Dobson, but nary a word about Newt. While there are good reasons for the GOP to avoid mentioning him, it’s also a tremendous act of ingratitude on their part, because without Newt Gingrich, the tattered old guard of the Democratic Party might still be in power.
Too much attention to Newt might also clue Democrats in to the secret of the Republican revolution. Folks might start to make the comparison between Gingrich and Dean…
Newt Gingrich and Howard Dean are, of course, miles apart in almost every ideological category, and, one hopes, in terms of personal character. Dean is, however, playing the Gingrich role to perfection and may yet pull off the same coup for the Democrats that Gingrich pulled off for the Republicans.
What did Gingrich do? He did exactly what an opposition leader should. He played to the party base, and he did it with what Republicans consider flair. But more importantly, he was a relentless attack dog for the Republican Party. He could afford to be, of course: his Congressional district is one of the reddest in the nation. This gave him the maneuverability to dog the Democrats at every turn, and Gingrich did so, tirelessly. No battle was too small for him, and no left-wing foible, real or imagined, escaped caricature by him. He was articulate, suprisingly intellectual, a brilliant strategist, and focused with white-hot intensity on the goal of driving the Dems from power.
Newt overreached, of course. First, during the government shutdown and the intemperate remarks he made. And second, during Monicagate, a nasty affair that damaged the perpetrators at least as much as the victim. He had played the role of opposition leader for too long, and couldn’t make the transition to being in the majority. But by then, his job was done. The Clinton Administration had been hobbled, and Gore was damaged enough by it that what should have been an easy win against Bush became a very close race. The rest is history.
So what does this have to do with Howard Dean? Everything. While the Democrat establishment is up in arms about Dean’s blunt assessment of the Republican party as a white-Christian-only club run by trust fund babies who’ve never done real work in their lives, they would do well to remember that this is exactly the same tactic that made Gingrich a political superstar and helped give the Republicans control over all three branches of government. Dean is doing his job, and he is doing it very, very well.
Dean isn’t a congressman, but like Newt and his reddest-of-the-red district, Dean has no fear of losing the next election because he’s the party chairman. GOP congressmen didn’t have to worry too much about Newt’s excesses because they could project a more moderate message while Newt did the dirty work. When it came time to actually vote on bills, on the other hand, they pressed ahead with Gingrich’s agenda. Dean, likewise, can be disavowed by individual congressmen while he acts as a lightning rod and rips open soft Republican underbellies. They should take care not to disavow him too much. And they should also take note with how well Dean’s message resonates with the Democratic base.
In other words, Senator Biden, distance yourself from Dean when your constituents get edgy, not when some blow-dried mass communications major posing as a journalist gets edgy, okay?
The rest of the parallels between Dean and Gingrich are pretty obvious. Both are intellectuals, both are ideologues, both are tireless, energetic fund raisers and rabble rousers: exactly what opposition leaders need to be. You may think Newt Gingrich was a scummy, hypocritical little prick — and I’m not going to argue that point — but he knew what it took to rouse the troops and he led them to a chain of political victories that is still going on. Dean, thankfully, seems to have better character and is immensely more charismatic than Gingrich, and he, too, knows exactly what it takes.
The lesson the Democratic establishment needs to draw here is that the GOP got to where it is now in large part through the tactical brilliance of Newt Gingrich and the organizational skill of Tom DeLay. The Dems have been blessed, almost magically, by the rise of their own Gingrich and DeLay in the form of Dean and Reid. Reid, fortunately, seems to be progressing unhindered by his fellow Dems. Dean, on the other hand, seems to be getting more resistance from the Dems than from the GOP. This needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. When you have Excalibur in your hands, you’d have to be a fool to wish for a butter knife.
Very well thought out and I agree with you about the similarities. Put out a tip jar so I can give you a 4.
Thanks!
Very nice piece. I think we should talk about what Gingrich did, as there are many valuable principles there. The Republican machinery had made message control an art during the Reagan years. One thing Gingrich did was load that disciplined message with cognitive and ideological signifiers, as embodied in his list of words to use about Democrats and Republicans, combined that message with a rapidly integrating organizational structure, and by doing so unleashed a tidal wave. A sustained analysis of the techniques of 1994 would behoove the Democrats greatly.
On the historical/political side, Gingrich had an advantage that Dean does not, and this is why I think the Goldwater analogy for Dean’s role may hold up better. Unlike Dean or Goldwater, Gingrich had the organizational activists and institutions that had grown out of the movement Goldwater launched, or that launched itself with Goldwater. (I’d also argue that while Gingrich was a master operator, Goldwater and Dean were less calculating, more plain spoken individuals driven by their respective vision and values.)
One aspect of what Gingrich did was something extraordinarily rare in American politics. He empowered a second generation of activists to take control of an existing movement. The history has always been for the “old guard” to hang on too long. Gingrich has a powerful sense of history, and I think he recognized that a fast and vast renewal of the conservative movement was possible, and was relentless, and effective, in carrying it out. A lesson to those of us that may believe we’re as yet in the founding stages of a lasting historical movement. One of the most important things I’ve heard Dean say is if we want to take back America we need to start thinking in 10, 20 and 50 year terms, generational terms, rather than the usual 2, 4 and 6 year election cycles.
Great comments.
I’m going to ramble a bit now. Sorry.
There’s something I wonder about w/r/t the crazy right wingers — they have all of their message discipline and stuff, but what happens when people (believers and non-believers) realize how empty their message really is? That there is no substance beyond “I’ll cut your taxes! Oh, and go hate that guy over there — he’s eeevvvilll”? It seems that so many of them reflexively vomit up the latest talking point as a substitute for actually thinking about issues. How long before cognitive dissonance gets to them? Then what happens???
If I was Newt, the possibility of this happening would keep me awake at night. Teaching people to spew talking points is one thing, but I’d rather have adherents with a coherent world view who can handle a setback or two. I have to wonder how well some of the crazier elements of the Republican party willl be able to manage when things aren’t going well (by which I mean massive economic collapse, Vietnam II, etc.).