Gingrich the Hypocrite

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on January 25, 2012

The next time the former speaker boasts about how close he was to President Reagan, recall this piece from Elliott Abrams:

In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich. “I worked with President Reagan to change things in Washington,” “we helped defeat the Soviet empire,” and “I helped lead the effort to defeat Communism in the Congress” are typical claims by the former speaker of the House.

The claims are misleading at best. As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.

[. . .]

The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

Gingrich scorned Reagan’s speeches, which moved a party and then a nation, because “the president of the United States cannot discipline himself to use the correct language.” In Afghanistan, Reagan’s policy was marked by “impotence [and] incompetence.” Thus Gingrich concluded as he surveyed five years of Reagan in power that “we have been losing the struggle with the Soviet empire.” Reagan did not know what he was doing, and “it is precisely at the vision and strategy levels that the Soviet empire today is superior to the free world.”

There are two things to be said about these remarks. The first is that as a visionary, Gingrich does not have a very impressive record. The Soviet Union was beginning to collapse, just as Reagan had believed it must. The expansion of its empire had been thwarted. The policies Gingrich thought so weak and indeed “pathetic” worked, and Ronald Reagan turned out to be a far better student of history and politics than Gingrich.

The second point to make is that Gingrich made these assaults on the Reagan administration just as Democratic attacks were heating up unmercifully. Far from becoming a reliable voice for Reagan policy and the struggle against the Soviets, Gingrich took on Reagan and his administration. It appears to be a habit: He did the same to George W. Bush when Bush was making the toughest and most controversial decision of his presidency — the surge in Iraq. Bush was opposed by many of the top generals, by some Republican leaders who feared the surge would hurt in the 2008 elections, and of course by a slew of Democrats and media commentators. Here again Gingrich provided no support for his party’s embattled president, testifying as a private citizen in 2007 that the strategy was “inadequate,” contained “breathtaking” gaps, lacked “synergism” (whatever that means), and was “very disappointing.” What did Gingrich propose? Among other things, a 50 percent increase in the budget of the State Department.

Of course, any number of people got political judgments wrong. But it is notable–and nauseating–just how much Gingrich has tried to tie himself to the legacy of Ronald Reagan, even though Gingrich’s younger self did everything possible to trash Reagan and his policies back in the 1980s. As Abrams notes, Gingrich was completely wrong in his judgments, and he remains completely unwilling to even admit that he once disagreed vociferously with Reagan, let alone that he was in error in doing so.

If Gingrich is a visionary, conservative, Reaganesque leader, then I’m a mastodon. And if Republicans fall for his I’m-the-second-coming-of-Reagan shtick in light of Abrams’s piece, then the GOP will deserve to lose this November.

UPDATE: Seriously? Gingrich?

  • BestGuest

    We’re losing this November regardless of who our nominee is.

  • http://whereswalden.com/ Jeff Walden

    I don’t much like anyone in the race.  I was hoping for Daniels most of all, then for Perry until I realized he couldn’t polish his appearance a little to appeal more broadly and consistently couldn’t debate his way out of a wet paper bag.  But I like Gingrich for his seeming opportunism, ego, and obvious hunger for power perhaps least of all.  See also some of the Volokh Conspiracy’s comments about him.  I’d be happy (well, somewhat more happy) to see him out of the contest.

    That said, http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/27/elliott-abrams-caught-misleadi claims this is an inaccurate hit piece.  Is it?  I wasn’t even born when the speech at issue occurred, and I really don’t remember anything about Gingrich from when he was in Congress; all my knowledge is second-hand at best.  Could you by any chance shed some light on this in a new post?  There are enough quotes in the second piece that I’m inclined to disbelieve the first (although this wouldn’t change my overall opinion of Gingrich), but there’s at least a chance the “misleading” is more in the second post than the first.

Previous post:

Next post: