Newt Gingrich as the next Barry Goldwater?
Written by Sarah on September 16, 2007 – 7:39 pm - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
Two things first: 1) I have not blogged in over six months - I apologize. 2) For those of you who have been reading for a while, you may know I am pretty obsessed with the idea of Newt Gingrich running for president.
I have not been paying much attention to the 2008 presidential race up until trecently. On the Democratic side, I am pretty sure it would be next to impossible for Hillary Clinton to NOT be the nominee. On the Republican side, things are a little more interesting, but I would say a little bit pathetic. Every few months, there is a new craze over who will save the party and stand up against the Hillary machine. First it was Rudy Giuliani, then it was Mitt Romney, now (and soon to be not) it is Fred Thompson. The election is a little less than 14 months away and we’re already trying to choose our candidates.
I still think it is imperative for Newt Gingrich to run for president. If he does, he could serve the country, the conservative movement, and the Republican party in a similar way that Barry Goldwater did in 1964 when he ran against LBJ. But instead of making conservative values popular for the first time, he’d reinvigorate those values, make them popular again, and translate them into effective policy solutions.
To be honest, I think the ills within the Republican party were self-created. After the 2004 elections, it seems to me that Republicans got complacent with having the power in all three branches of government, did not get anything done, and lost a bunch of key political battles. Along with recent scandals and some ineffectiveness of the Bush administration to communicate policies to the public, the Republican party in general also really just abandoned their conservative ideals of small government, lower taxes, and individual liberty. At this point, there is little substantive difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.
With that said, I believe that Republicans are most likely going to suffer more losses in 2008, including the White House. Hence, I think it would be best to put up a nominee like Newt who could reinvigorate and excite the conservative base of the Republican party and clear the way for a more conservative candidate in the years to come (maybe as early as 2012). Republicans have been forced to promote candidates who are not really even conservative (i.e. Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Ron Paul, the outspoken libertarian and foreign policy appeaser) and candidates who have no idea what they’re doing (i.e. Fred Thompson, the next “Reagan” who cannot even verbally distinguish his views from those of the other candidates). Newt, not Thompson, would fill the conservative void in the race. He has the practical political skills and the innovative ideas. He is the best among both parties in communicating his stances and policy proposals.
Despite his skill and potential, Newt’s chances of winning against Hillary are slim. Politically speaking, Newt has some political baggage (stepping down as Speaker, marriage issues) that might hinder his chances of winning. Hillary’s campaign machine is extremely well-organized. Nevertheless, it would be best to put up a candidate who actually stands for something and could be an effective leader. I’d rather put a candidate like Newt and lose than put up a candidate like Romney or Giuliani and lose.
In 1964, the Republican Party had a choice between Nelson Rockefeller, the Governor of New York and the longtime leader of the GOP’s liberal-moderate faction, and the conservative Arizona senator Barry Goldwater. The party chose Goldwater who stood for principles of small government, individual liberty, lower taxes, ones that were beginning to become more mainstream after over three decades of the FDR liberal establishment.
Goldwater was not elected and America barely got through the disasters of the LBJ/Carter years. I think we could tolerate another Democratic administration. I think if a Democrat got into the White House, especially if it is another Clinton, then the conservative movement and the Republican party will work harder to fight for sound public policies and to win political battles. Republicans need to re-learn that conservative ideals are American ideals and that leftist liberalism is completely out of step from the American mind and political tradition.
Win or lose, a Newt Gingrich bid for the presidency would be transformative for the American political process, general political dialogue, the conservative movement, and the Republican party.
Last 5 posts by Sarah- Convention Day 4 - September 4th, 2008
- Convention Day 3 - Steele and Romney speeches - September 3rd, 2008
- Conservatives and Catholics - A General Observation - April 16th, 2008
- Another instance of viewpoint discrimination at MU - April 11th, 2008
- The passing of a chief architect of the conservative movement - February 27th, 2008
Posted in 2008 Election Coverage, Brave New World, Ministry of Strategery, We ask the Tough Questions. |
September 17th, 2007 at 11:08 am
I am also a big Newt fan. Dan, Brandon and Chuck have all had to listen to me tout the benefits of Newt for president. Whether or not that’s a possibility in the upcoming election I think it would a good idea to focus our effort on taking back at least one of the houses of congress to limit the amount of damage that Hillary would do. I don’t think it is out of the realm of possibility with the new congresses approval ratings.
Oh, and welcome back. I always enjoy your posts.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Let us see what Newt has to say……
Q: You said fairly recently that the Democrats had a very high likelihood of winning the presidency next year.
Gingrich: I think that the country, after the last couple of years, has a bias in favor of change — I think probably starting with [Hurricane] Katrina and coming through Baghdad and the whole sense of too much spending. And you sense a lack of enthusiasm in the conservative base, and you sense a stunning level of intensity in the anti-war Left. And so you just look at the dynamics and you have to say the odds are probably 80-20 [in the Democrats' favor].
From http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070913nj1.htm
September 17th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
I was under the impression that Barry Goldwater had fallen out of favor with Republicans…I mean, they even tried to take his name off of the Republican headquarters in his own home state.
If only there really were a modern Barry Goldwater to take the religious extremist aspect of the modern Republican Party down a few pegs! Newt Gingrich, alas, is exactly the wrong person to fill those shoes…
September 18th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Barry Goldwater would vote for Ron Paul. There is no denying his fiscal responsibility, small government credentials, pro-life culture, respect for freedom and the Constitution. As far as foreign policy, Ron Paul is not at odds with conservatism but rather the 21st century Republican Party.
In the 1990’s I remember the GOP standing up for small government principles when the Clinton administration deployed troops overseas or after numerous skirmishes last decade.
A decade(s) long War on Terror is not conservative, in any sense of the word.
It seems that whenever government declares ‘war’ on an idea (i.e. drugs, poverty, terror) it allows the size and scope of government to expand to new highs. Beyond that, no amount of spending or sacrafice of liberty can ever ‘be enough’ when fighting drugs, poverty and terror, according to a big government mindset.
Ron Paul is not an appeasing person. In fact, Ron Paul was the leader of an effort to have Congress formally declare war rather than the muddy’ authorization of force,’ a power not granted to Congress in the Constitution.
Ron Paul has energized millions of supporters because he embraces the traditional/universal conservative values we cherish. The only sticking point slowing Ron Paul in this race is that over 51 percent of Americans have lost faith in big government’s War on Terror but 80 percent of Republicans have not.
The 21st century Republican Party’s foreign policy is not conservative but Ron Paul’s is.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
“Barry Goldwater would vote for Ron Paul. There is no denying his fiscal responsibility, small government credentials, pro-life culture, respect for freedom and the Constitution.”
Actually, Barry Goldwater insisted that abortion was a private matter to be decided by families rather than government, and opposed criminalization of it. (It’s why they tried to take his name off the Arizona Republican Headquarters in the first place.) He also strongly opposed mixing religion and politics, vowing to fight “every step of the way” religious leaders attempting to pressure politicians into voting a certain way. Neither of those characteristics would endear him to modern Republicans, nor does Newt possess any similar qualities of moral backbone. I can’t comment on the Ron Paul comparison, because I don’t know much about him, but as far as I know there isn’t a single major player in the GOP today comparable to Barry Goldwater.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
The analogy or comparison I was trying to make between Gingrich and Goldwater is that Gingrich would ahve a similar EFFECT on the GOP, conservative movement, and American political scene as Goldwater did in 1964. Goldwater lost in 1964, only won six states, but made conservative ideas popular and more accepted. Read “The Conscience of a Conservative” - that outlines his political philosophy and stances on polices - you will see many striking similarities to conservative Republicans today.
As Kat did point out, a wing of the Republican party consists of Christian evangelicals. AS far as electoral politics goes, they have been an extremely powerful wing of the party and one that clearly Goldwater would not be welcomed. I personally do not think the evangelicals adequately or correctly represent the true conservative movement. I believe Newt Gingrich does. There is a big difference between religious right and American conservatism as a way of life/political philosophy.
Also Goldwater’s stance on abortion was not insignificant but was not as important as his views on taxes, government, subsidies, etc. Abortion is a debate that defines our times, not his. The major abortion battles did not come until a decade later.
The differences between the GOP in 1964 and 2007 is a slightly different topic. I think what Newt could do is bring back conservatism to its roots. I do not consider the religious right as a part of the conservative movement (meaning Kirk, Hayek, Friedman, Weaver, etc.) but as part of a completely different movement of American that aligned itself with the Republican Party.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
If you want to talk about distilling the GOP to its essence let me assure you Ron Paul is probably the closest embodiment in the currently announced candidates. The GOP ought to be synonymous with small government.
There was a time in America when Republicans could be trusted to manage the books and let you keep your money. This was an arrangement Americans could appreciate and support. Turns out once you are as willing as the Dems to seize people’s money and spend it on things they don’t support you are likely to face electoral disaster.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Ah, I get where you’re coming from, Sarah. I still don’t think Newt is the right person for that, though…revitalizing an ailing political party of any stripe is a job for somebody with morals, and I just don’t see Newt fitting that description.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I don’t think a perfectly moral life is necessary for a candidate or, in this day and age, even expected. Voters want someone who can get the job done and that is Definitely Newt.
Not that I would mind seeing Ron Paul get the nod either.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I should apologize to not responding to derekrivers sooner.
I agree with Gingrichs’ assessment of the presidential election which led to my comment, but his comments you posted does not address either house of congress. Democratic presidential candidates have a high approval rating but the Democrat congress does not. I think voters were expecting more action and did not receive it.
I’m glad you have as much faith in his assessments as I do and hope he can count on your support.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Newt Gingrich will not run for president in 2008, his spokesman tells CNN.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I just read that on Drudge today….. it’s unfortunate.
There’s always Ron Pual…..(cue Chuck)
September 29th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Nathan, I don’t expect immaculate lives from politicians. What I do expect is somebody who has some unchanging principles which they will stand for no matter what. Newt has no such thing–he will stand for anything. His only principle is self-service. In that way, he is the Republican Hillary Clinton…not someone to revitalize an ailing national party.
September 29th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Gingrich has had two divorces, and this spring confessed to an affair while deeply involved with trying to remove a duly elected President over a private matter. (What is it about the GOP White House hopefuls? LOL) While I think private lives of public people should not be an issue unless there is a dose of hypocrisy, such as is the case with toe-tapping Larry Craig, there would have been pay back time if Newt had run. He would have spent his time talking about the past, and that is the worst place to be when the public wants to be led into the future.
September 30th, 2007 at 2:35 am
I agree he would have spent a lot of time talking about his past. So will everyone else but Obama who will spend a lot of his time talking about his lack of a past.
“I don’t think a perfectly moral life is necessary for a candidate or, in this day and age, even expected. Voters want someone who can get the job done and that is (would have been) Definitely Newt.â€
“Moral Flexibility†As a liberal you should appreciate this. Clinton, Jesse Jackson, James McGreevey, Mel Reynolds, Gus Savage, Teddy Kennedy, Barney Frank and many many others from both sides who all got reelected after being naughty. A lot of this was years ago before being immoral was cool. Compared to these guys Newt is a saint.
Moral indignation is a strange thing with politicians. It seems to be pointed at everyone but the one espousing it.
Isn’t that funny?
September 30th, 2007 at 9:58 am
I was just rereading my comment. It may have come off as condescending and I didn’t mean for it to. You made an excellent point.
September 30th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
No offense taken. I’m the first to admit that moral flexibility is pandemic on both sides of the aisle. Hillary Clinton, for one, is a particularly nasty case…I pray that she doesn’t get the nomination!
Funny that in their rush to appear more pious and Christian than their rivals so many politicians forget that Jesus preached conciliation, respect, and essentially that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. And that’s true of Goppers and libs alike.
September 30th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Final Note: I think when it comes to morally flexible politicians, I’ve been spoiled by growing up in Senator Feingold’s district. People might not always agree with his principles, but he clearly has them and is willing to fight for them. I was absolutely shocked to discover while canvassing that even the majority of people who voted for President Bush were Feingold supporters, but looking back I suspect it was this very moral inflexibility that earned so much respect.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Ron Paul on ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/player?id=3686127