The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Gingrich's Megalomania

Text Size

Gingrich's Megalomania

By Quin Hillyer on 12.6.11 @ 12:46PM

A 1995 Vanity Fair piece by Gail Sheehy has the goods on Newt Gingrich. In this blog entry, we focus on his own megalomania:

"It's not altruism! It's not altruism!" he proclaimed to The Washington Post in 1985. "I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it...Oh, this is just the beginning of a 20-or-30-year movement. I'll get credit for it...As a historian, I understand how histories are written. My enemies will write histories that dismiss me and prove I was unimportant. My friends will write histories that glorify me and prove I was more important than I was. And two generations or three from now, some serious, sober historian will write a history that sort of implies I was whoever I was." Until he reaches his "impossibly high ideal," Newt will remain the unacknowledged child. Many observers see the child at the center of Newt. "Newtie is still a kid," admits Kit. Marcella McPherson agrees: "Newtie wants things Newtie's way...If he wants something, he wants it now. Newtie was always for Newtie."

I've heard the man with my own ears refer to himself as a "world-historical figure." He's the kind of guy who, living out his own personal drama, would welcome the worst sort of brinksmanship not for the sake of the cause, but for the sake of the brink itself.

View all comments (38) | Leave a comment

Dan| 12.6.11 @ 1:02PM

A guy who overturned FORTY YEARS OF DEMOCRAT dominance in the House REQUIRED that attitude, otherwise, he would have been like those Republicans who ACQUIESCED to that dominance.

You seem to keep pushing this idea that his attitude should turn us away from him.

We DON'T WANT a squish like Romney, nor Bush, nor any such like, we want an articulate fighter, someone who has to suppress his own internal desires to go after his political opponents.

Romney has about as much fire and passion as a not untypical houseplant!

We don't want any of this Bush crap, utter crap, about "we're all in this wonderful thing called public service!"

We feel like telling Bush off to his face for the damage he did to the country, his party and to us.

And Romney enjoys the favour of that jerk family.

If Gingrich has an attitude ---------------------- GOOD! All the better, because that's EXACTLY what we want, someone with an attitude, a GENUINE confidence that flows from his UNEQUIVOCAL embrace of American Exceptionalism.

Derek Leaberry| 12.6.11 @ 4:12PM

The political decision of millions of southern whites to discontinue punishing the Republican Party for Mr. Lincoln's War largely created the Republican House majority in the 1990s. Newt Gingrich was a beneficiary.

Dan| 12.6.11 @ 5:02PM

That's a stretch in a major way.

You don't seem to understand that the GOP at the time didn't just acquiesce to Democrat dominance, but had acclimated themselves to it, and were {and many STILL ARE} made extremely uncomfortable at the thought of anybody fiercely taking it to the Democrat opposition.

If you had lived through those years, and had followed politics as many of us had then, you wouldn't be taking for granted what Gingrich did, and what he ALONE had the vision to attempt.

It's one thing to go off after Gingrich for some of his misdeeds, for some of his personality quirks, but don't go running down his signature accomplishment, something that men like Bob Dole ACTIVELY opposed him trying.

Did you know that?

Bob Dole actually OPPOSED Gingrich's attempt to create a "contract with America" and nationalize the House races. Dole was one of those ALTOGETHER COMFORTABLE with the GOP being nothing more than a sterile appendage to the Washington establishment.

Derek Leaberry| 12.7.11 @ 9:34AM

Although the aggressiveness of Gingrich was preferable to the placidity of Robert Michel, the landslide of '94 was largely created by 1) a reaction against Bill Clinton similar to the '10 reaction against Barack Obama and 2) the large movement of southern congressional districts to the Republicans, a movement ably assisted by the creation of about one dozen majority-minority congressional districts.

richard mcenroe| 12.6.11 @ 11:12PM

As Santorum pointed out, the GOP had also just scored their first major victory against Democratic corruption in the House banking and post office scandals. The time was right for the GOP to capitalize on the Democratic culture of corruption and Newt took advantage of it.

Of course, by 1998 that advantage had passed and so had Newt.

Bob K.| 12.6.11 @ 8:36PM

The change in the south in the 90's was going to happen, with or without Newt. There was a Democrat President from the south who won 2 terms without getting 50% of the popular vote either time. The South was ready to leave the Democratic party. Newt helped out some but he sure as hell did not cause it! I don't even think he was smart enough to realize it was going to happen judging from his record a Speaker of the House. He acted like taking over the House was an anomaly and not an inevitability.

teflon93| 12.6.11 @ 1:04PM

Quin "I Blast Romney at Every Turn" Hillyer has now written 8 posts/articles blasting Gingrich to 1 critical of Romney since Oct 3rd.

Dan| 12.6.11 @ 1:05PM

Now, now Teflon, don't get jumping to any conclusions or arrive at any suspicion about who Quin is really favouring.

I'm sure that really Quin is a Bachmann supporter, but like Obama, he's keeping that all on "the down low."

Dan| 12.6.11 @ 1:07PM

And you realize Teflon that Quin right now is doing NEXUS searches on old, back in the day, hit pieces on Newt. He's exhausting himself right now, and all yesterday and the weekend too, painstakingly perusing for old hit pieces on Newt.

A Georgetown boy too!

teflon93| 12.6.11 @ 1:10PM

I hear you, Dan---he's so busy doing anti-Gingrich research he simply doesn't have time to take down his Establishment RINO archenemy Willard "Mittens" Romney.

Dan| 12.6.11 @ 1:04PM

The Bush nostalgiacs who are looking for some pathetic squish they're all cozy and comfortable with can go get f#$�!

ggoblue| 12.6.11 @ 2:18PM

jebus quinn...go vote for obama then...

Grzmlyk| 12.6.11 @ 2:34PM

I'm no fan of Romney.

But I'm also no fan of Newt.

The man is NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT a conservative. Why can't you people see that? Not only that, but his narcissism is going to make it very difficult for him to form the alliances and build the coalitions he will need to accomplish anything.

Yes, I'd vote for Gingrich over Obama. And I'd vote for Romney over Obama. But neither of those choices will affect America's trajectory. Romney will bow and scrape before the status quo and Gingrich will think he's clever enough to harness it to build his own progressive utopia. He'll be wrong, and even if he were right, Gingrich's vision for this country is not far different from any run-of-the-mill statist's.

Also, any Republican that's elected to the presidency can easily be chewed up and spit out in a heartbeat by the entrenched bureaucracy - career staffers, regulators, lawyers, lobbyists, the faceless army that fills the hundreds of thousands of Federal department positions, etc.

That's where the power lies in Washington. If you're a Democrat, of course, that entrenched power infrastructure is at your beck and call.

I'm sorry, but Rush Limbaugh is living in fantasyland on this one - I understand that he doesn't want to diss any GOP contenders, and so he rails against any criticism against any of them.

But if either Romney or Gingrich is the answer, I shudder to think what the question is.

DRed| 12.6.11 @ 2:40PM

The question is 'How terrible does a candidate have to be to lose to one of the least popular presidents in recent American history'

Grzmlyk| 12.6.11 @ 3:09PM

Don't sell yourself short. Obama remains the darling of thieves like you, who believe you are entitled to live large off of the sweat of another man's brow.

And don't forget the legions of crony capitalists happy to prop up the petulant, ignorant teenager in the oval office (think Jeffrey Immelt, Goldman Sachs, Warren Buffett, Al Gore). All they have to do is espouse socialist bromides and they are free to steal taxpayer money hand over fist so that they can live in the luxury that all good socialist elites are convinced they so richly deserve.

In today's America, there are way more freeloaders and thieves like you, who want to sit in the cart, than there are decent human beings left whom you can enslave to pull the cart.

And there are vast swaths of useless debris out there, like the OWS garbage, who are too ignorant or too greedy to contemplate the difference between real job creation and funny-money government sinecures.

It is the fools, the crooks, the pawns and the nihilists who keep our piece of shit in chief's ratings above the 0% he has earned.

DRed| 12.6.11 @ 3:27PM

It's funny that you put Goldman Sachs in there, Grzmlyk. You believe in tax cuts for the wealthy and de-regulation of the financial industry, no? Who do you think that's going to benefit? You?

Actually, you probably don't care either way. All you seem to offer is inchoate rage. I'm not even sure you know what you're angry about, other than the usual boring catchphrases you list off.

Grzmlyk| 12.6.11 @ 4:26PM

Inchoate? Do you even know what that word means?

Because I think it's pretty focused.

Hey, why don't you ask Goldman? They're good buddies with your god, Obama. He's THEIR guy. And they're HIS bitch. The old campaign donation quid pro quo.

Or maybe you can ask Jeffrey Immelt. Or possible whoever is the puppet running GM now. Or maybe Richard Trumka. Gosh, so many corrupt high-rolling Democrats, so little trough to cram the money into.

By all means, Dred, whatever your greedy little heart desires that will make your life of utterly useless lassitude nice and comfy, someone else should be forced to give it to you. You shouldn't have to lift a finger. It's not like you haven't already done enough by insisting that other people give you money. You've probably even mussed your hair once or twice in your sincere protestations for - what are you calling it? Oh yes. "Social Justice," nudge nudge wink, wink. Somebody should pay you for THAT.

After all, a nice home, a sweet ride, a high-paying job that you don't REALLY have to show up for, a college degree with which you can wipe your ass, maybe some bling, an EBT card that will be honored at all the hippest clubs, high-speed Internet and an Ipad - like, those are TOTALLY your civil rights, dude.

You shouldn't even have to get up off of your plush leather couch! Party on!

DRed| 12.6.11 @ 5:23PM

Yes, inchoate. Look at your latest work. You seem to think Goldman Sachs is controlled by Obama because of the campaign donations they give him, which makes no sense whatsoever. And I notice you avoided my simple questions yet again, preferring to go off on one of your rants.

I notice you avoided my simple questions about Goldman and instead went off and pummeled away on a strawman. Come on, my friend, they were simple questions. It goes to the incoherence of your argument. You (at least, you seem to) think Goldman Sachs has too much political influence and is stealing money from the public (and you're right). At the same time, you support policies that only make it easier for them to do so.

DRed| 12.6.11 @ 5:24PM

haha. Speaking of unfocused, that comment of mine needs some serious editing. oof.

Dan| 12.6.11 @ 5:07PM

10% plus real unemployment.

20% plus real underemployment.

For black men aged 18 - 25, real unemployment exceeds 50%

And you're frightened of this guy?

You're frightened of taking it to him, and tarring him and blasting him for ruining America's economy.

The guy's numbers are down there with Jimmy Carter, who lost 44 states in 1980, ----------- and you're leery of going with a real Conservative.

If not now? -------------------- When?

If not during this crisis, when will you feel comfortable pushing forward a genuine Conservative who will advance genuine Conservative solutions?

If we go with Romney now, then we're effectively locking the GOP in with Romney and Huntsman like clones for the next generation.

It's time to break out of whatever hold the Northeastern RINOS have over our party. We don't need a single Electoral College vote Northeast of the Mason Dixon.

And for some like Christy Whittman that means and always has meant that their political career has a ceiling when it hits their respective governor's mansions.

Casey Abell| 12.6.11 @ 2:46PM

Gotta admit, I'm enjoying the Hillyer meltdown. Good ol' Quin is liquefying a lot faster than Newt lately, even as Hillyer confidently awaits Newt's "melt."

Psychologists call it projection.

SpiralArchitect| 12.6.11 @ 4:13PM

It seems way past the time for Quin's typically underwhelming blow back to opposing POV & blasting of any opposition to his opinions expressed here.

Mike W| 12.7.11 @ 12:13AM

You'll probably enjoy the GOP presidential disaster next November less.

Dai Alanye| 12.6.11 @ 2:52PM

Gingrich is a highly questionable candidate, and we'd better keep a close eye on him. His surge is based on being an accomplished speaker and a feisty opponent of the Dems and their tame media. It remains to be seen whether he has the character needed by a President.

We need to recall the earlier excitement over Scott Brown (now revealed as a RINO), Chris Christie (super RINO), and Donald Trump (self-promoting clown.) These guys all looked like fighters, but what have they been fighting for beyond their own ambitions?

This is a problem for Gingrich, too -- and for Romney, by the way. At any rate, let's stay excited about conservative principles, and put not our faith in princes. Or in Speakers.

In the meantime, it is an error to mindlessly attack Quin, who knows Gingrich more intimately than any of the rest of us.

Casey Abell| 12.6.11 @ 3:13PM

"In the meantime, it is an error to mindlessly attack Quin, who knows Gingrich more intimately than any of the rest of us."

Well, I guess I am attacking Quin Hillyer. But I'm also enjoying his increasingly frantic anti-Newt screeds. I figure that by this time next week, Hillyer will be calling Newt the anti-Christ and looking for the "666" on Gingrich's scalp.

SpiralArchitect| 12.6.11 @ 4:14PM

By scripture it is said to behind the left ear, no?

Jeff Perren| 12.6.11 @ 2:58PM

Valid points, every one. The sad fact is, though, that - unless Perry rises considerably in the polls and soon, which is very unlikely - it's Romney or Gingrich. Given that choice, I prefer someone who at least talks like a limited government guy. There is a chance his feet can be held to the fire by a limited government Congress (if we could get even close to that in 2012). With Romney, there is no such chance.

Casey Abell| 12.6.11 @ 3:05PM

"There is a chance his [Gingrich's] feet can be held to the fire by a limited government Congress (if we could get even close to that in 2012). With Romney, there is no such chance."

Given their personalities and histories, I would argue the exact opposite. I can easily see Gingrich getting into knock-down-drag-outs with a GOP Congress. After all, that's exactly what happened to him as Speaker. Republicans knocked him down and dragged him out (not quite literally, but close).

I think Romney would be much more amenable to a Republican Congress. His personality is much less confrontational, and he'd be more worried about alienating conservatives in the GOP caucus. Gingrich would figure he was always correct and would attempt to crush any opposition from the GOP...or anywhere else.

All that said, I'd like Newt more as a President. Much less boring, much more entertaining. And I doubt there would be huge differences in policy between Gingrich and Romney, anyway.

Grzmlyk| 12.6.11 @ 3:19PM

A politician's job in post WWII America is one thing and one thing only: Buying votes with taxpayer money to stay in power.

Republicans don't want smaller government any more than they have to pay lip service to their constituents while they collect the big money from lobbyists. And any Tea Party candidate with a conscience has the choice of getting on the bus or getting run over by it.

Besides, even if we do wind up with a genuinely conservative congress, and a Republican president, I will bet anyone here any sum of money that, since things are going to get MUCH worse before they get better, the voters - those paragons of vacillating stupidity - will vote in a Democrat congress in 2014. Hello printing press, good bye America.

It is time to dissolve the political bands that have connected us with the tyrants in Washington.

Gingrich or Romney - does it really make a difference? Did it matter who the captain of the Titanic was five minutes after it hit the iceberg?

SpiralArchitect| 12.6.11 @ 4:17PM

Did it matter who the captain of the Titanic was five minutes after it hit the iceberg?

Point taken.

However as I recal the story the captain waited quite awhile before taking any defensive (life saving action) as the 'unsinkable' ship was quite safe.

Grzmlyk| 12.6.11 @ 4:30PM

That's true, but once the ship hit the iceberg, it was doomed to sink regardless of what he did; the water had breached too many compartments.

And, like America today, there weren't enough lifeboats to accommodate everybody anyway.

Trinacria| 12.6.11 @ 3:24PM

So Mr. Hillyer's chief argument against Gingrich as a candidate for the presidency boils down to the fact that he's arrogant and somewhat condescending? While that might disqualify him from the office of Miss Congeniality, it's hardly a relevant factor in the assessment of one's ability to hold executive office. For someone who considers themself to be a serious thinker to take such a profoundly unserious position is both unfortunate and rather far short of the standards we've come to expect of those who have the privelege to grace the pages of this commendable journal. Pity.

SpiralArchitect| 12.6.11 @ 4:23PM

I want someone with the personality of Grover (Seasame Street), cuddly, furry & soft (spoken as well) to be the next POTUS.

Why would anyone even phantom someone with any history (ie: experience), motivation, ambition or confidence (yes, ego too).

What good would that do for anyone. I think the Grover type (everyones friend mind you) would do just fine strolling around the WH, nothing to be concerned about, no issues to be resolved. Yes, thats surely the way to go.

Mike 3/505| 12.6.11 @ 8:52PM

"that he's arrogant and somewhat condescending?"

This is the usual accusation made to their betters, by folks of lesser intellect.

Regards,

Mike

Casey Abell| 12.6.11 @ 3:24PM

"It is time to dissolve the political bands that have connected us with the tyrants in Washington."

Um, what does that mean? Civil war? A bunch of states tried that once. Didn't work.

Grzmlyk| 12.6.11 @ 3:40PM

Um, we borrow $188 million dollars every hour of every day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week (that is known as "unsustainable").

And what is the GOP doing in Washington now? Making draconian cuts? Throwing out everything that's not nailed down in a desperate attempt to keep the ship of state from sinking?

Nah. They're quite calmly pretending to make an effort to manage the extent to which government GROWS. The rate at which a sinking ship takes on MORE water.

And they're losing THAT battle. So that $188 million figure is going to rise. We have over $200 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities overall. How do you suppose we're going to have a safe, happy landing from that? We're going to print money, as we have been doing in earnest since 2008.

I don't know if you know this, but any politician peddling reality isn't very popular these days. And so we will continue to kick the can down the road - until we can't. Until our creditors take away the punch bowl.

See what's happening in Europe? That is coming to America, but multiplied manifold. That is already baked into the cake. It mattered not one whit who was standing at the bridge once the structural integrity of the Titanic was compromised.

So I say this to you:

America didn't collapse as a result of fiscal profligacy before.

It is about to.

It can't happen here? Isn't that what they've said everywhere it HAS happened?

Think Lord of the Flies. And think how we're going to emerge from THAT.

Mike 3/505| 12.6.11 @ 8:54PM

"Think Lord of the Flies. "

I do, every time I see the OWS retards.

Oldefarte| 12.7.11 @ 10:18AM

Which would be preferable, an egomaniac man-child, self-centered historian/capitalist/governmental budget balancer/reducer; or a egomaniac man-child, self-centered domestic terrorist/socialist governmental budget destructionist [as POTUS]???????????????