Gingrich had a plan
McKay Coppins in the Atlantic on how Newt Gingrich made Trump possible.
[F]ew figures in modern history have done more than Gingrich to lay the groundwork for Trump’s rise. During his two decades in Congress, he pioneered a style of partisan combat—replete with name-calling, conspiracy theories, and strategic obstructionism—that poisoned America’s political culture and plunged Washington into permanent dysfunction. Gingrich’s career can perhaps be best understood as a grand exercise in devolution—an effort to strip American politics of the civilizing traits it had developed over time and return it to its most primal essence.
In June 1978, age 35, he gave a talk to some college Republicans.
“One of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty,” he told the group. “We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal, and faithful, and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around the campfire but are lousy in politics.”
For their party to succeed, Gingrich went on, the next generation of Republicans would have to learn to “raise hell,” to stop being so “nice,” to realize that politics was, above all, a cutthroat “war for power”—and to start acting like it.
A few months later he got elected to Congress and put that idea into effect.
Gingrich had a plan. The way he saw it, Republicans would never be able to take back the House as long as they kept compromising with the Democrats out of some high-minded civic desire to keep congressional business humming along. His strategy was to blow up the bipartisan coalitions that were essential to legislating, and then seize on the resulting dysfunction to wage a populist crusade against the institution of Congress itself.
Deliberately smash it for the sake of winning – in other words, do great damage to the country as a whole, meaning great damage to the people of the country, in order to win. Not to win to do good, but just to win. He’s all about the winning.
Gingrich and his cohort showed little interest in legislating, a task that had heretofore been seen as the primary responsibility of elected legislators. Bob Livingston, a Louisiana Republican who had been elected to Congress a year before Gingrich, marveled at the way the hard-charging Georgian rose to prominence by ignoring the traditional path taken by new lawmakers. “My idea was to work within the committee structure, take care of my district, and just pay attention to the legislative process,” Livingston told me. “But Newt came in as a revolutionary.”
For revolutionary purposes, the House of Representatives was less a governing body than an arena for conflict and drama. And Gingrich found ways to put on a show. He recognized an opportunity in the newly installed C-span cameras, and began delivering tirades against Democrats to an empty chamber, knowing that his remarks would be beamed to viewers across the country.
Again: it’s not about doing anything useful, it’s just about winning. It’s Trump in a nutshell.
Gingrich hustled to keep his cause—and himself—in the press. “If you’re not in The Washington Post every day, you might as well not exist,” he told one reporter. His secret to capturing headlines was simple, he explained to supporters: “The No. 1 fact about the news media is they love fights … When you give them confrontations, you get attention; when you get attention, you can educate.”
Effective as these tactics were in the short term, they had a corrosive effect on the way Congress operated. “Gradually, it went from legislating, to the weaponization of legislating, to the permanent campaign, to the permanent war,” Mann says. “It’s like he took a wrecking ball to the most powerful and influential legislature in the world.”
But Gingrich looks back with pride on the transformations he set in motion. “Noise became a proxy for status,” he tells me. And no one was noisier than Newt.
Until Trump. Gingrich looks back with pride on this hell he worked to create.
He couldn’t have done it unless there were an awful lot of people in his party who were keen to do the same thing.
I am reminded once again of Charlie Stross’ Political failure modes and the beige dictatorship:
It seems to me that, in the 5 years since that was written, the Republicans (and other right-wing parties and groups around the world) have decided to ditch these ideals. They’re so intent on being the party in power that they’re happy to throw the opposition in a Gulag, happy to turn politics into a knife fight, or happy to stop the state itself from operating, and have decided under no circumstances to go peacefully and wait for that next bite of the apple.
I often hear some people say that the left needs to tool up for the knife fight that is happening in order to stay in the game. Part of me sees their point, but on the other hand I want the state to operate, and I want to vote for someone who believes in those principles. I want to vote for “the good guys” rather than “the lesser of two evils”, but if the left follows down the same path then I fear that’s what I’ll be left with.