Newt Gingrich's secret South Carolina weapon was fear.
So Newt Gingrich has won the South Carolina primary.
In the course of a week he turned around his campaign, transforming a serious deficit into a 13 point win. South Carolina voters rejected Romney’s time at Bain Capital, his Mormon faith, and his insincerity. They turned, instead, to the disgraced former Speaker of the House, a man whose personal life is quite frankly enough to disqualify him from any possible general election run; whose statements over the past few years in regards to Obama, religious freedom, and other controversial issues place him not only on the far-right of the political spectrum, but among its worst elements.
Gingrich can pander like no other, but his personal and political past should be enough to rouse Republicans from whatever drunken stupor has led them to this precarious destination.
Admittedly, one state does not a nomination make, but Romney has never been so vulnerable.
“This is the Republican crack-up people have been predicting for years,” writes Andrew Sullivan. “Gingrich is on a roll. I think he can win this – and then lose this in a way that could change America history. That is a brief impression in one moment of time. But I cannot see Romney winning this at this point. They are just not into him, and he’s an awful candidate.”
The Republican Party “deserves its spokesman,” Andrew argues. “But do not under-estimate the appeal to some of the idea of humiliating and removing the first black president. That’s what Gingrich is really about. He is giving them what they want. And it’s meat that has barely seen a skillet.”
It’s remarkable, really. There’s a sort of debauchery to it, this willingness to follow whoever says the most extreme thing, whoever is willing to play the raging fool.
What is conservatism in this country? What has it become?
Corey Robin argues that it’s the politics of the perpetual reactionary. Conservatism here and in Europe has been the manifestation of the status quo reacting to the forces of change and progress. Sullivan argues that true conservatism is more a matter of disposition and temperament; that the true conservative seeks balance. In some ways, these are very much the same thing though Robin’s conservative is a revolutionary in reverse, and Sullivan’s is a force for stability. (I am suddenly reminded of Ra’s al Ghul and his reactionary League of Shadows…)
These days I see conservatism more as a bastion for fear of the Other than anything else. The Other is the crux of every conservative argument: fear of the immigrant other (Mexicans!); fear of the cultural other (Liberals and Elitists!); fear of the religious other (Muslims!); fear of the racial other (black people!); and so forth. Conservatism is a sort of protectionism that inhabits the minds of the fearful (and make no mistake, this tendency creeps up on the left at times as well.)
Conservatives believe that we must protect our borders, stop the flow of communism or radical Islam, etc., fight big government but not the entitlements that big government so graciously hands out to us. No wonder most conservatives want to keep the military strong and well funded when so much fear is at play. A conservative in the American sense is not interested so much in turning back the clock as he is in stopping it altogether.
This - this harnessing of fear and resentment – is what Newt has tapped into on the right and he’s done so better than anyone else – better than the bumbling Perry or the more mild-mannered Santorum. It doesn’t matter if he has a plan or if he’s lying through his teeth or if his past is littered with failures both moral and political. It doesn’t matter if he’s just another big government rightwinger in disguise, pandering to whatever shreds remain of the once mighty Tea Party. What matters is what he represent - he’s become, quite suddenly, an avatar for all this terror at the browning of America, at the financial crash, the poor labor market. He’s become Obama’s doppelganger.
Obama is all that is Other and Newt is that comforting swell of rage that accompanies it. In this sense, Newt’s very familiarity is a blessing when it ought to be a curse.
Why Newt and not Romney? Certainly Romney has taken a hard-line stance on everything. I’m not sure it’s his Mormonism so much as it is his insincerity. When Romney talks about Obama or the various issues conservatives have with Obama, he just isn’t convincing, even to a liberal like me. He sounds like a phony. (Like I’ve said before, he has no soul.) Gingrich, on the other hand, has plenty of soul, dried up thing though it may be, and he can access deeper emotional resonance in the GOP base. Romney’s anger is flat and papery. Gingrich may indeed only be a better actor, but he’s a method actor, and he pulls off the role he knows he needs to play.
Whether he can sustain it is another question. Gingrich comes with his own cartload of baggage and plenty of moderates in the GOP outside of South Carolina are just as nervous about the former speaker as they are about the former governor of Massachusetts. This game is far from finished.
What a glorious sport we’ve made of our political system.
Pingback: Newt’s Secret Ingredient — The League of Ordinary Gentlemen
Solid, E.D. This post leads me to a question, which I might explore this week:
Might this race, right now, be a pretty big argument against the universal truth in America that the person who should lead is the person who truly believes?
Thanks, Tod.
Yeah, I think True Belief is probably not as important as it’s made out to be. What we need are people willing to make the right decision even if it’s the hard decision. Unfortunately this is almost always a disqualifying factor when it comes to getting elected.
But admit it. Isn’t there this tiny, dark, evil part of your brain that really, really wants to see Newt win the nomination – just to get to witness the ensuing train wreck?
I’m a big enough man to admit I’d pay to see that.
Like I said, it’s a glorious sport…
Part of me would love to see Newt get the nomination and then go down in flames when the the Newt he’s blown up to superhero proportions in his ego meets the reality that is Obama–more intelligent, more polished, and eminently more likeable. Part of me is scared to death that he might actually win the nomination and, if the stars coalesce and the economy goes down, win the presidency as well. That’s a scary, scary thought.
Michelle – If Newt wins the presidency under any circumstances, it will be because we as a nation have truly reached the point where we deserve it.
Newt is the apotheosis of this nation’s fears of the future, its forlorn hopes that somehow we will return to a past which never was. It’s a universal sentiment, one we see all over the world in difficult times. The UK installs David Cameron, a triumph of image over substance. Egypt votes in the Islamists. France endures the rank and insincere populo-conservatisme of Sarkozy, blowing his own dog whistles about the racaille, a nasty enough word on its own describing . Russia seems intent upon another round with Putin. It’s everywhere, Erik.
Hard to say if we’re going to pull up on the yoke and get straight and level. We’ve augered in before as a nation.
Everywhere indeed, Blaise.
True Believers are scary. They will never even try to see the world as it is. The world will always be what they insist it is. To many times the True Believers took to killing/harassing/etc people who refused to see the world as they said it should be. One qualifier for high should be: are you willing to make a choice that goes against what you want to believe?
I suppose it depends on what kind of choice, though. It’s easy to buckle and trade in one’s principles for all the wrong reasons.
True Belief is probably *not as important*? I sure hope we mean different things by True Belief.
To me True Belief (especially with capital letters) implies absolute certainty. And absolute certainty is almost never good in a leader, at least one with powers of any consequence. It means you easily ignore facts to the contrary of that belief and you easily ignore unpleasant or downright tragic consequences stemming from them.
No: save me from the True Believer, or even the Sincere. Give me a clear set of principles, but with a healthy dose of humility and skepticism about them as well
Is there any silverlining to Gingrich’s rise and his victory in SC?
I’m getting to be of the opinion that rather than being an embarrassing circus, the Republican primary campaign has presented a good opportunity to see what’s “under the hood”, so to speak of that 1/4 to 1/3 of the American electorate which votes GOP. Oftimes, we’ve had the chance to see what is worst in American politics (with some exceptions, of course, but such are the ways of presidential elections).
The silverlining I see however is Republican Party’s utter lack of discretion as it reveals to the world its warts.
Now, if anger and resentment and fear are present (if not to say predominant) in large swathes of the US electorate, it is a good thing that this should be known and fleshed out in the public sphere as opposed to being swept under the rug under the heading “mere differences of opinion”. Its much deeper than that given the divergences in American sub-cultures, regions during this time of economic dislocation.
What do you think – is there a silverlining to mention, after all?
I imagine there are several silver linings actually. For Democrats at least the silver lining is that Newt almost certainly can’t beat Obama.
But you raise an interesting point: the anger is real and it’s good to try and understand it better. It’s important to have that discussion and try to get to the bottom of it.
For every silver lining, there’s a big black cloud.
This is a nation which elected the likes of Andrew Jackson and Nixon and Bush43. We are not above electing a complete idiot to President.
What was wrong with Andrew Jackson?
Not to put words in Blaise’s mouth, but the Trail of Tears and defying the Supreme Court are pretty bad. The dude really shouldn’t be on the twenty.
Two words. Specie Circular.
Granted, that was Jackson doing his whole Ron Paul “fiat money BAD!” schtick…
The GOP is reaping what they’ve sown with talk radio and Foz News. Newt has morphed himself into the perfect poster boy for the perpetual outrage machine.
Darren – Agreed. This is Happy Meal Conservatism in Newt form.
Cheer up, chaps. Sooner or later Professor Newtrich will realize that America is over 200 years old and flee for the hills with a corn-fed, vacant-eyed blonde on either arm and a thousand elephants to carry his baggage.
.
Of course, the reign of Droid-Emperor Romney might not be much fun either, given that the GOP is a degenerate rabble of hate-peddling dunces apparently designed as punishment for our national sins, and that the Imperfectly Programmed One will pander in quaking terror to any extremist who marches up to the White House in tights and tricorn with an illiterate sign over his shoulder.
Yours in corporate personhood, etc…
I assume you are using True Believer in the same sense Eric Hoffer used it, and yes, Newt and his crowd will definitely show the country “what’s under the hood.” I’m more interested in what is going to happen down ballot. The country won’t elect Newt or Romney but how many True Believers will return to or be sent for the first time to Congress?
“Conservatism here and in Europe has been the manifestation of the status quo reacting to the forces of change and progress. “
That is what conservatism is SUPPOSED to do.
Depends on how it’s achieved.
And actually what’s your point? I never said it wasn’t.
You sort of did. You stated how Corey Robin see it (the one I quoted). Then how Sullivan sees it. Then how you see it. That implies three separate views.
Yet you quote my description of Robin’s thesis.
Yeah – which is still HIS opinion, correct? Are you saying that you agree with it and conservatives are reactionary?
Well I’m saying what I say in the post. Did I not make my opinion clear in the subsequent paragraphs?
Yes, conservatives are reactionary – but not necessarily in order to reclaim some old order but rather to protect themselves against the Other.
Is this a defining feature of all conservatives? No, I don’t think so. Plenty of moderates exist. I don’t think someone like Mitch Daniels is a great example of a conservative however. He’s as much as said that he’s a classical liberal. Much of the appeal of Chris Christie is his libertarianism, however watered down it may be.
But again, conservatism is SUPPOSED to be reactionary. It’s the governor switch on progressivism. The problem with some conservatives though is that rather than pump the brakes they pull the car over and put it in park.
And you can define Daniels as a classic liberal or a progressive tory or a neo-traditional whig. But he calls himself a conservative. And as an active actor inside of the movement, he is trying to steer the ship in a direction he sees as a more desirable conservatism. That’s how Nixon’s GOP became Reagan’s GOP and then Bush II’s GOP.
I think the problem is that you look at the process backwards. You say, “Today’s conservative movement looks like this – and if you don’t match the template, I will call you something different.” The reality is that many actors choose to enter the movement and say, “This is what I believe and I’m going to try steer the movement in this direction.”
Maybe it all comes back to the fascination with labels. When you rely on them too much it becomes easy to stereotype and dismiss anomalies.
This post has a lot of big, broad statements about conservatism. My suggestion would be to watch Chris Cristie’s latest speech, then watch Mitch Daniels response to the State of the Union tommorow night and tell me how many of these stereotypes hold up.
Forgive me, but which of these two men is at the head of the movement? Which is about to be nominated?
Which of the two nomination front-runers are the ‘head of the movement’?
And would you say that John McCain was the ‘head of the movement’ at the time he got the nomination?
Isn’t Newt the response to the failures of untrue conservatives like McCain?
Only if you have forgotten many of the reasons why he was run out of Congress.
Mike Dwyer, a couple of things. One is that you say that *all* conservatism is reactionary, and that may be true in some very limited understanding of of that term, and one which is loose enough to include liberals under the description. But there are are various ways to be reactionary. For a Burkean conservative, it’s a reaction to changing established customs in a radical way, evfen if those customs are inherently illiberal or inconsistent with maximizing freedom. If you’re an Oakeshottian conservative, it’s a reaction to change because it’s change is unpredictable.
So, yes, conservatism is necessarily reactionary in some sense of that word. What Robin argues is that conservatism has actually become both radical (the opposite of ‘conservative’ in normal English) as well as defined by resistance to change which inherently undermines established privileged power structures that benefit (or are perceived to benefit) it’s adherents, even if those power structures are inherently unjustified (and unjustifiable). Hence, you get Robin’s critique of conservatism wrt gay marriage, welfare, women’s rights, segregation and other racial issues, ‘free’ markets, war and state power, tax rates and redistribution, etc.
So, conservatism isn’t reactionary as a way to *moderate* radical (liberal) change as much as a way to *preserve* unjustified social and cultural power-imbalances.
“So, conservatism isn’t reactionary as a way to *moderate* radical (liberal) change as much as a way to *preserve* unjustified social and cultural power-imbalances.”
While I agree that conservatism as a whole has gotten away from moderating liberal progressivism I don’t think I would agree with your claim of motivation (preserving injustice, etc). That implies a certain evil that simply doesn’t exist.
“doesn’t exist”? I assume you really mean “only exists in the fringe”: the existence of groups like the KKK and Stormwatch really isn’t in doubt, is it?
But I don’t think that Robin is saying that this process is necessarily explicit or even conscious. If you are uncomfortable with losing status then classic conservative rhetoric can be used/abused to rationalize your discomfort: “preserving tradition”, “recognizing the simple truth of the natural place of woman/the black”.
I almost forgot to say, btw, that this is the best post headline you have ever written.
Thanks! I thought of the title before I wrote the post. Then I almost forgot it, but remembered it again in the nick of time…
Mike sez, upthread: “The problem with some conservatives though is that rather than pump the brakes they pull the car over and put it in park. ”
I think this is indeedy the problem, particularly because we could really use some judicious application of intelligent driving instead of “foot on the floor” or “run into that wall”, which is what we’re oscillating between at the moment.
If Newt wins the nomination, and then he wins the Presidency, it will be almost impossible for the GOP to not also net the House and the Senate. Unlike most everybody else, I would actually like to see this happen.
The GOP, as a political party, is selling two things at once, and they’re getting lots of enthusiastic buyers, but the two things are incompatible. Nobody who is buying is going to be convinced of this until the “fish or cut bait” moment comes and they suddenly find that they’re either the fish or the bait.
We can live through four years of that. I’d rather live through four years of that and have nascent real conservatives wake up to what their party has become than continue this current… whatever it is we have.
But we just lived through years and years of that with Bush and the GOP congress. Nobody woke up to anything. The Republican party is still a wreck. Maybe even worse. Why would a Newt + GOP congress change this?
There was a war, you see? Everybody knows you have to make sacrifices in war.
But if Newt thinks he can get away with that tack, he’s going to be very surprised. People who join the military skew conservative, and everybody who can possible serve a tour has done more than three. I’m with Mike on this one: declaring another war isn’t going to get you conservative votes, it’s going to lose you conservative votes.
I don’t see how it is possible for the GOP to govern with its current platform. You can’t privatize social security and get rid of welfare without ensuring that you don’t win another election for 20 years… but if they hold Congress and the Presidency they’re going to have to deliver.
*Especially* if they get 60.
And when the First Newt declares war on Iran.. what then, sang Plato’s ghost, what then?
Pat -
I’m not certain of the particular “two things” that are incompatible for the GOP, but I agree the country could survive seeing this play out and that would lead to some useful self-reflection on the current direction for conservativism.
I’m wondering if you believe a similar epiphany would be possible if Gingrich were to win the GOP nomination and get soundly beat in the general. I’m of two minds on the matter: on one hand, I could see it happening, but I think it’s just as likely that conservatives would conclude that a rejection of Gingrich was due to his flaws of character (and the evil liberal media harping on them), rather than the flaws in his policy prescriptions.
> I’m wondering if you believe a similar epiphany
> would be possible if Gingrich were to win the
> GOP nomination and get soundly beat in the general.
Pretty much
> conservatives would conclude that a rejection
> of Gingrich was due to his flaws of character
> (and the evil liberal media harping on them),
> rather than the flaws in his policy prescriptions.
That. Of course, if Mitt wins and then loses, it will be because of his not being conservative enough.
Pingback: George W. Bush's Last Disaster - The Republican Party - Politics in the Zeros