Newt’s a Healer, Not Just A Hollerer : Despite what liberal pundits say, Gingrich has moved from ‘wedgislating’ to legislating.

Faced with the rise of Newt Gingrich and the House GOP, liberal commentators have groped for a variety of explanations. The duller writers have trotted out lame cliches about negative campaigning and white male anger. The more imaginative have attributed the election results to some sinister, mystical power: A recent opinion piece on this page compared the ascendant GOP to Lestat, the murderous villain of “Interview With the Vampire.”

Talk of vampirism makes for a good sound bite, but it does not address the real question: How has Gingrich gone from brash bomb-throwing bad boy of C-SPAN to Speaker of the House?

The ironic answer is that his bomb-throwing was constructive. Gingrich tossed verbal grenades not to tear down the House, but to open it up. By the 1980s, the Democrats had buried deliberation and accountability beneath a mass of procedural gimmicks, and Gingrich sought to blast open the process so that Americans could see the differences between the parties.

His real target was the chamber’s arrogant leaders--but those leaders had been entrenched for so long that Democrats equated any criticism of their stewardship with an assault on the institution itself. Some in Washington must be surprised to see that the House still stands, even with Republicans in charge.

Critics have denounced Gingrich as an “authoritarian” who wants to drive dissonant voices from the GOP. On the contrary: The hallmark of Gingrich’s leadership style has been an effort to broaden the party’s base and reach out to its various factions. He has said that he practices conflict management, not conflict resolution: “You only resolve conflicts by kicking people out and that means you become a minority. So if you intend to be a majority, you have to be willing to live with a lot of conflict, because that is the nature of a majority.”

Anti-Gingrich columnists have cited his description of the Clintons as “countercultural McGoverniks” as proof that he can never become a responsible leader. Nonsense. His remark was downright gentlemanly compared with the way recent House speakers treated Ronald Reagan. Tip O’Neill called him “evil” and Jim Wright said that the famous Berlin Wall speech “just makes me have utter contempt for Reagan.”

In any case, Gingrich has already shown a sense of institutional responsibility; his cooperation on NAFTA and GATT was crucial to final passage. As evidenced by his intent to be “Speaker of the whole House,” Gingrich can move from “wedgislating” to legislating.

As a minority, House Republicans were accused of a “rule or ruin” attitude. Now pundits ask whether they seek “reform or revenge.” Incoming Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.) has responded with “Armey’s axiom,” namely, you can’t get ahead while you’re trying to get even. Politicians sometimes rise above their passions and interests to act on principle. The reform of the committee system, led by Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas), means that some senior Republicans must forgo committee chairmanships. The defunding of the legislative service organizations struck at the Republican Study Committee as well as other House groups. Though this organization had long supplied the GOP with important services, reformers wanted to cut all the caucuses as a way of ending taxpayer financing for special-interest lobbies.

The House Republicans may be too busy enacting their ideas to exact revenge--although faced with Democrats such as California’s Pete Stark, former chair of the health subcommittee, who could blame them for gaveling these toppled tyrants into silence?

Observers seemed unduly confused by Gingrich’s posture toward the Clinton White House: “Cooperate, yes; compromise, no.” The line is rather clear. As an institution, Congress mediates among competing interests and ideas. Responsible legislating may involve compromising divisible interests, but it does not require selling out one’s principles.

And House Republicans have spelled out their principles: They want to limit and decentralize government in order to promote individual freedom and responsibility. Gingrich seeks to replace the “corrupt liberal welfare state” with a “conservative opportunity society.” He intends to use the bully pulpit of the speakership to transform public discourse and to advance a governing philosophy.