Gingrich: Don’t Expect ‘Kinder, Gentler’ Politics

It’s time for a good word about partisanship. True, tough political sparring does not jibe with the trendy “kinder, gentler” Washington. In this world, where divided party control of government forces accommodation to get nearly anything done, smart politics have been considered “no politics.”

But things may have changed with the recent choice by House Republicans of Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) as their new minority whip. He rose to power drawing ideological lines and charging Democrats with ethical misdeeds. His slashing political style has made him an object of vitriol, ridicule and fear--which helps explain the unusual interest in the new occupant of the once-obscure House leadership post. His selection prompted a Democratic leader to predict “an escalation in partisan political warfare at the expense of the national interest.” A Washington Post profile of the Georgia lawmaker was headlined “The Great Divider.”

Contrary to the skeptics’ views, Gingrich’s election to the No. 2 post in the House Republican leadership poses challenges to both parties. Gingrich says that his aggressive political style can aid Republicans and the Bush Administration by helping them develop more appealing and better-defined policies (which have been in short supply since January); the conflict resulting from sharpened partisan lines, in turn, can help promote truly bipartisan and more effective solutions to national problems.

Take, for example, the recent Democratic initiative to raise the minimum hourly wage from $3.35 to $4.55. Many critics, including liberal economists, contend that the minimum wage has become increasingly irrelevant in many parts of the nation as middle-class teen-agers who flip hamburgers are being offered twice the current minimum. They argue that a more effective way to help low-income wage earners would be to expand the federal earned-income tax credit, which puts more money into the pockets of poor families without the inflationary risks of a minimum-wage increase.

In his handling of the issue, Bush has not sought to draw political lines, as Gingrich advocates. Instead, he has gone roughly two-thirds of the way toward the Democrats’ goal. The Democrats, in turn, say that is not enough, raising the prospect that Bush will veto the politically popular measure. Would it not have made more sense, some Republicans ask, for Bush to press for the earned-income tax credit and force Democrats to choose between the interests of the poor and those of organized labor?

Gingrich has argued that the Republicans should do a better job in defining how they differ from the Democrats on a range of issues, including education, environment and child-care. For the most part, his proposals envision a government-sanctioned choice of expanded opportunities in the private sector. He has often pushed for more use of federal tax credits as an incentive.

In lengthy interviews with me, he has contrasted his approach to the Democrats’ preference for bigger government. Gingrich has called the opposite party an unwieldy coalition of the “loony left,” big labor and big city machines. The result, as exemplified by the 1988 candidacy of Michael S. Dukakis, is out of touch with mainstream America, he contends.

His frequent description of the Democratic coalition as “corrupt” has allowed Gingrich to link ideology to his long-advocated interest in ethics. A continuing and often-overlooked preoccupation of his political career has been the need to restore public confidence in government. In fact, he began his career as one of the few Republican “Watergate babies.”

His first run for the House was in 1974 against Democrat John Flynt, a crusty conservative who was chairman of the House Ethics Committee. The previously unknown Gingrich won 49% in a disastrous year for Republicans, largely by running against Flynt’s weak handling of ethics problems. In an early sign of his persistence, Gingrich won 48% in a second run against Flynt in 1976, when Flynt was helped by having Jimmy Carter as Democratic nominee. Finally, in 1978, after Flynt announced his retirement, Gingrich was elected to the seat serving south and west Atlanta suburbs. Since then, he has easily turned back several active opponents with national Democratic backing.

Gingrich quickly became a gnat in the nest of House Democrats. Then-Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill Jr. (D-Mass.) was thrown by Gingrich’s use of House C-SPAN telecasts as a form of guerrilla theater to spotlight perceived Democratic outrages. His efforts did little to increase GOP strength but Gingrich began to sensitize many Republicans to the frustrations and inequities of their record back to 1955 as the House minority party.

His two-vote win (87-85) last month over Edward R. Madigan of Illinois as minority whip was based partly on Madigan’s ability to do business with Democrats. Gingrich calls the less-partisan style “getting the crumbs”; other members defend the old approach as helping them serve favored interests in home districts and elsewhere.

Gingrich won national notice last year when he began hammering House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas) for ethical lapses, chiefly in personal finances. Initially, the crusade was regarded as little more than a collection of dated rumors and newspaper stories and Gingrich was widely dismissed. Even many Republicans told Gingrich he was wasting his time. Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.) asked two other House Republicans to examine Gingrich’s case against Wright. After an extensive review, they advised Gingrich to drop the matter.

But Gingrich’s persistence eventually led to a formal complaint, plus a separate, crucial filing by Common Cause. They prompted the unprecedented inquiry by the ethics committee, whose report on Wright is expected soon.

Many of the same Democrats who a few months ago dismissed Gingrich’s complaints lately have been waiting uneasily for what many expect to be a tough report that will raise serious questions about Wright’s tenure as Speaker. “Members are dreading what will happen,” said a House Democratic source. “No one has any stomach for it but they may not be able to avoid it. Especially for those who were elected because of Watergate, it’s their worst nightmare.”

Whether the Wright report becomes a dream come true for Gingrich and the Republicans remains to be seen. The GOP was reminded last week of the long, uphill road it faces to a Republican majority in the House when it lost a special election for a vacant seat in a conservative Indiana district once represented by Vice President Dan Quayle. From Gingrich’s perspective, the largely issue-less campaign run by the Republican contender is further evidence that Republicans need to draw an ideological line.

The Indiana setback led some House Republicans to suggest that, because of his limited experience on the House floor, it would have made more sense for Gingrich to have taken charge of their campaign committee rather than the more legislative-oriented whip post. But in the House’s increasingly partisan mood--sparked by the Wright inquiry and the Gingrich leadership election--the would-be centrists may be missing the point: The gloves are off and media-savvy warriors like Gingrich are calling the shots.