Screaming Joe Wilson: Newt Gingrich's Frankenstein
Joe Wilson of South Carolina -- the guy who blurted "you lie!" during the President's speech last week in Congress. Institutionally speaking, he is Newt Gingrich's love-child.
Let me explain: Gingrich might be everyone's favorite climate change convert, a mellowed pol with a gay daughter, but remember the Contract with America? It was an election stunt in 1994 that helped propel conservatives to power in the House of Representatives and put then-Speaker Gingrich in charge. It was the year that resulted in severe damage to the First Branch of Government. The House of Representatives was dramatically altered in 1995, after Gingrich ascended. If congressional politics are inside baseball, Gingrich completely upended the playing field. Truth be told, he plowed it under. His intent was to consolidate power -- and he did it with familiar conservative tactics -- the same ones used to dismantle government and regulation all across the public sector: politicize, de-professionalize, privatize.
His victim on Capitol Hill was the policy support system for Congress -- a large internal network of long term staff people and organizations with expertise on issues like environment, security, technology, energy, nuclear arms and hunger. These individuals were dedicated to the whole institution -- helping Democrats and Republicans alike. They were a vital part of the institutional memory -- the memory of collective interests. They were the conveners of common goals. These staff provided places to float trial balloons, demystify "opponents" and build political space for compromise. They gathered ideas, created opportunities for relationships and helped members be better champions of all the American people -- not just the people who could pay. Gingrich wiped them out in 1995. He lobotomized the peoples' House. He made us dumb on purpose.
Newt's chickens have come home to roost. But during the 1990s, the conservatives were not squawking during speeches, they were organizing. They had amassed legions of attractive and articulate advocates in think tanks and in the lobbying houses of K Street. They had field commanders in trade associations and in the non-profit world. They had matching talking points and perfect press releases. They enjoyed ideological retreats in nice places sponsored by corporate sugar daddies. They responded with open arms when Gingrich spun off the public sector inside Congress. They embraced the public agenda and then yanked it to the right. Joe Wilson isn't an accident, he's an outcome.
I came to DC in the late 90s from California -- and found myself fighting a precise and steeled army. My side was a well meaning and soulful pick-up team. It was the Stepford Wonks versus the Partridge Family. It is better now, but we still have a long way to go. Witness the health care debate. Why is it even a question that citizen-taxpayers have to wait in line to be served by their government? Why is it even a question that private, commercial interests get a bigger seat at the table just by whining?
If you get angry at how Congress behaves today ... seeming to lack an over-arching strategic vision, seeming so bitter and antagonistic at the expense of the entire country -- like Mr. Wilson -- it is helpful to understand the anthropology behind what Gingrich did. Community institutions are like any asset of civilization -- they require effort, resources, risk taking and constant care. They are fundamentally about relationships. They train us to be civil and respectful. For this reason, community building doesn't fully fit into privatized or commercial designs. It also doesn't fight back when attacked. The anti-government crusade of conservatives has come full circle now. A constituent yelled "get the government's hands off my medicare!" at a Town Hall meeting. Where to begin? This past Saturday the tea-baggers were in DC for a rally. I asked a group of them if they liked the beautiful Mall and all the government buildings. They smiled and said yes. Where to begin? They don't even know what they hate. They remind me of the "survivalists" in my home town. The ones with WiFi who are lucky to stay alive between trips to Denny's.
Free market claptrap on the right is as dated and unhelpful as claims about evil capitalism on the left. Adam Smith -- the economic guru of conservatives -- would be mortified to see what conservative ideologues have done with his socially generous ideas about markets. Smith's goal was to have a carefully regulated market aid in the development of prosperity like an "invisible hand." His was a collective philosophy based on self-interest. Now the social part is optional. The conservative triumph in turning Americans against government is not a direct causal relationship. But it has warped our expectations of social obligation. Most Americans never intended for the "invisible hand" to be at their throat. Like the billionaires who just walked with our retirement savings, or war profiteers in Iraq, or our shameful response to New Orleans.
The world is begging for better institutions. For problem solving rules and relations, i.e. for government.
In Afghanistan and Pakistan, government is our military's counter-terrorism strategy. It is an obvious common good, mostly because of its absence. For such a prosperous and successful country, Americans have relatively few things that unite us: a language, some symbols, a few songs, a government. All things considered, we've done really well as a nation built on a balance between cooperation and self-interest. This is all at risk. Joe Wilson proved it last week.
Newt Gingrich is no dummy. He claims to be a lover of our democratic institutions. But he must know something about cause and effect. I wonder if he gasped to see a white southerner call our first African American president a liar in the middle of his health care address. Newt is a smart guy. Every time I've heard him speak, he places events in context. He must know then that Joe Wilson is his Frankenstein. An experiment gone hideously wrong. And it doesn't stop there. This past July, Gingrich gave a speech about national security. He decried our current situation as unprepared, unable to meet new threats. He described our leadership as unimaginative and even ignorant. Just one question, Mr. Gingrich. Wasn't that the plan?
Follow Lorelei Kelly on Twitter: www.twitter.com/loreleikelly
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I recall the contract with America. I recognized it as a contract on Americans from the very start. In their silly decorum, Congress slapped Wilson on the wrist. What else could we expect for such a petty infraction? I'm no Adam Smith scholar, but weren't his comments on "social obligation" an after thought? No surprise that today capitalist and our government treat them as an after thought themselves. Social obligation is a relative term, so in their minds they may be meeting their social obligations.
Read more at: http://www
One of Gringrich's first actions was to do away with the House's support of the Office of Technology Assessment, a science based policy analysis group. OTA was widely respected for its unbiased analysis of science issues for the House and Senate. Gringrich wants to be seen as a supporter of science based policy, but his record is the opposite.
Hurray for this column; I've been complaining about this for years and it just isn't sexy enough for most.
Another insightful article on HuffPost. I knew, not that it requires any great powers of observation, that the politicians "Post-Newt" included some lightweight head-bobbers, but I never traced how it happened. To consolidate power Newt and W needed a willing roomful of sycophants who could memorize a few taglines, stay on message, and vote on cue. He got them and has spent the next 17 years crowing about it. I cannot think of a single enduring accomplishment of the "Contract With America" and am led to the conclusion it was nothing but marketing used to get the numbers needed to gain control of the governmental money machine.
In the Federalist Papers we are warned frequently about the dangers of "factionalism" and how it brings down democracies. It is a word that could use a good dusting so it can be reinserted into the national debate right now. Factionalism is rampant, no less dangerous, and explains the frustration we all feel with our government.
Lorelei, you sound angry to me. That may well be justified, but is it moving us toward solution?
Let's say all this is so--what do we do about it?
And does anybody know a good, nonpartisan, objective history that explores the mistakes and successes from multiple administrations and multiple Congresses that got us into this mess? I'm looking for a thoughtful, balanced, historically accurate, unbiased (or as much as humanly possible) analysis, ala how the Pentagon Papers explained Vietnam.
Ms. Kelly--so true and well said. The chickens are coming home to roost for these retrogrades. Arrogance and not a thought for how actions lead to consequences. The top line GOP never seems to reap any consequences though, it is always We the People down the food chain who suffer. They can afford to regroup and lick their wounds and get the the ignorant acolytes they created to spin into the dust while they plan more destruction. They have put themselves into very tiny ideological boxes so that they are forced to be the reverse of ANYTHING the democrats or President Obama or you and I want. Smart? Communist plot. Poor? Don't help them. Obama must continue the mess of Afganistan they started--now they want to stop it. Healthy population? Against that for sure--health is a privilege. Like getting hit by a truck is something an organic banana will cure or a health savings account. Their plan for that is empty, except for the first page which states: Hospice care is free.
Newt has a gay daughter? I thought that was his sister. Methinks you are confusing Dick Cheney with Newt Gingrich.
http://emi
http://mys
After being beat in the primary and the general election by Obama and the people Rush fed J.W. from his trough of revenge . This is what happens when people eat that swill .
I'd like to know more about how Newt and company disassembled the staff. What resources did they eliminate. I'd also like to know more about how Bush did the same in the Administrative branch.
http://www
Is Palin against grandma and grandpa getting care through that evil government program called Medicare??
http://chr
The Texas Advance Directives Act (1999), also known as the Texas Futile Care Law, describes certain provisions that are now Chapter 166 of the Texas Health & Safety Code. Controversy over these provisions mainly centers on Section 166.046, Subsection (e),[1] which allows a health care facility to discontinue life-sustaining treatment against the wishes of the patient or guardian ten days after giving written notice if the continuation of life-sustaining treatment is considered medically inappropriate by the treating medical team.
This bill was signed into law while George W. Bush was gov. of Texas.
http://www
http://thi
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Ad says health reform plan would mean big tax increases Not true.The very wealth would be taxed maybe 1% which is much less than the tax cuts they recieved by Regan and Bush foor the trickle down effect that did not work.
http://www
Google How the first responders that survived were not cared for with the millions supposedly for their treatment.
Hailed as national heroes at the time and since generally forgotten, many remember the $1 billion fund the government set aside for their needs. What most don’t know is that the only money spent out of this fund was for lawyers to challenge the approximately 8000 claims made. Not a single dollar went to these heroes or their survivors left with unpaid medical bills before the Bush administration ‘re-allocated’ the money.”
http://www
Second, do the bloody math! If every person in America were covered by a public option, less the top 1-2% who can afford massive insurance premiums, the cost per person per month over 10 years would be a whopping $27.78! That means for a family of four you would pay only $111.18 per month in premiums. This is not huge and it is voluntary - not mandatory!
However, if Republicans cannot get any compromise they are demanding a fine for those who do not have insurance while dropping the public option! They not only want us to continue to pay over $600 per month on up for insurance government if the Republicans have their way.
premiums, but when we do not have access to insurance because of job loss or denial of coverage, they want to fine us! In other words, we would be taxed in the form of fines for not having the very insurance that we cannot get nor afford without access to a public option!
If people would do the math, and pay attention to the actual facts about the program - the question becomes WHY WOULD ANYBODY NOT WANT THE PUBLIC OPTION INSURANCE!?!
THE ANSWER IS ALWAYS IN THE NUMBERS HERE - $1,000,000,000,000 to cover everyone for 10 years in premiums paid in, not out, versus six to ten times that figure into the pockets of insurance companies plus fines to the
anyone not having insurance.
http://www
SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
http://blo
we demand Joe Wilson be Court Martialed for his insult to our President before the Congress, our great country and the world in accordance with Article 88: Contempt Toward Officials.
http://blo
http://www
First, the public option plan is premium funded, not taxpayer funded. It means that the premiums paid are what are used to cover the expenses. This is just like private insurance companies and will not add to the deficit. Of course, an understanding of what a premium is would help, but most people do not think in those terms because they are too lazy or too ignorant about where the money the insurance companies pay out comes from. When they make huge profits for their CEOs and stockholders it means that they are taking in more in premiums than they are paying out in benefits! Guess who suffers?
Thanks for sharing this interesting historical perspective on how we got to where we are, Lorelei. "...warped our expectations of social obligation" encapsulates the problem. How do we resolve it? Where do we get the "anti-Newt"?
First of all, I immensely respect the office of the President of the United States. I don't think that President Obama should have to suffer the slings and arrows that might befall him in the House of Commons, e.g., as a result of his making a speech before a joint session of Congress and to millions of other Americans.
Conversely, the current politics du jour puts the onus on Joe Wilson for calling president Obama a liar during a joint session of congress. Without belaboring the point ad nauseum, no matter which way you slice and dice it, why is it that the president can smugly lie ["prevaricate" if it makes you feel any better] repeatedly during his speeches and supposedly we the American people have to just sit there like the tar baby in the Uncle Remus Tales and repeatedly continue to take it? Well, I for one ain't gonna continue to take it any more completely lying down, and neither are millions of other patriotic Americans who want to preserve our Constitutional Republic initially formulated by our founding fathers.
We still aching from having to put up FOR 8 LONG YEARS, the lying horrible monster that the supreme court appointed as a result of the "tie goes to the runner" rule. You'll hold your pistol tighter when the Los Pepes start fighting fire with fire in THIS country.
Who in the U.S. is NOT wanting to preserve our Constitutional Republic?
Sir, you have totally missed the point of "that" discussion. Actually, you have missed it in so many ways but you are your problem.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
