Watchdog Blog

Myra MacPherson: The Real Newt Gingrich Is Only an Archive Search Away

Posted at 10:29 am, December 20th, 2011
Myra MacPherson Mug

(Myra MacPherson profiled Newt Gingrich for the Washington Post’s Style section in 1989.)

Reporters, listen up: Stop calling Newt Gingrich a “scholar.” In fact, spend some time learning about his real history.

Yes, Gingrich calls himself a “historian,” but there was a time when reporters went to the clips to check things like that. Now, ironically, even with great Internet access, looking up yesterday to help explain today is too often a lost exercise.

Gingrich has been getting the smartest-horse-in-the-race treatment from the media in the roller coaster ride of surging, then fading presidential polls. The “scholar” and “historian” adjectives aren’t just used by cheerleading conservative pundits, but by reporters who state it as fact.

The Washington Post just published an embarrassing gusher regarding Newt’s smarts — with no examination of  his decidedly more street slugging than scholarly record and use of smears and gutter language against opponents. The piece raved about how he led his children in reading at night. Imagine that.

The pugnacious pit bull of politics — who says he won’t speak ill of his opponents, while slicing them up — even gets laudatory headlines for this trait. See, for instance, Americas Greatest Attack Politician, in Slate. In fairness, many were counterattacks, but when Newt Is in the ring nothing is considered below the belt.

The irony is that he is now fading in the polls due to Newt-bashing ads by opponent Ron Paul, who accuses him of “serial hypocrisy” and then, accurately, notes that Gingrich ducked Vietnam, had to pay $300,000 in ethics violations as Speaker and took more than $1.6 million as an advisor to mortgage giant Freddie Mac. He was no lobbyist, insists Newt; he was hired — and these are his own words — as a “historian” to explain the vicissitudes of finance. A real historian would have cost a lot less.

We all know the one-liner that may be appropriate here, given Newt’s Republican rivals — “in the land of the blind, the one eyed is king” — but this does not a scholar make.

There is also something much more important than the media’s excessive emphasis on Newt, the alleged brainiac — and that is character.

Much of his background and his own comments about his life, revealed 20 years ago, are still waiting to be recycled. They matter because they illustrate much about the man and why he is so comfortable with the arrogant sneer, such as calling Obama “the finest food stamp president in American history.”

While my own reporting on Gingrich goes back in time, the peculiar events and statements by colleagues, pastors and professors and by Newt himself, still seem to me to be extreme, even for rabid politicians, even for Newt. Here, for example, are some items from a profile of him that I did in 1989.

For openers “historian” Gingrich could not get tenure in a minor institution, West Georgia College. “Writing, presenting research work was not Newt’s forte,” said his dean, Richard A. Dangle. When first asked, Gingrich fudged and said he didn’t apply for tenure, then changed his story to having had a conversation with the dean who told him he was not going to get tenure “under any circumstances. You’ve spent four years campaigning, you can’t turn now and say, ‘let me get on the track.”

After Congress, Gingrich used conservative venues like the AEI as holding tanks, while he reconfigured his personal entrepreneurial and political career. Teaching was just a way station during his ambition-soaked climb up the very greasy pole of politics.

As for Gingrich and moral judgments, that climb was littered with discarded friends, wives and colleagues. “Newt doesn’t take the low road, he takes the tunnel,” Bill Doxey, an English professor and former West Georgia State colleague, said.

And his former pastor Rev. Bretley Harwell, was so disillusioned at Newt’s famous dumping of wife number one — bringing her divorce papers instead of flowers while she recuperated from a cancer operation — that he was willing to be quoted. The reverend told me, “You’re looking at an amoral person, that’s what you’re looking at.”

Mr. “Family Values” would like all the talk of his admitted extramarital affairs to stop, arguing that he is a grownup now and the issue is unimportant to his presidential qualifications. But this is the man who won the all-time Chutzpah award when he led the “family values” campaign to impeach Clinton for lying about Monica Lewinsky while cheating on his own wife. During his second marriage, Gingrich examined his treatment of women — calling himself an “incredible bulldozer” at work who couldn’t metamorphose into a nice guy at home. “I read ‘Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love them’ and I found frightening pieces that related to…my own life,” he told me for that 1989 article. When asked if the marriage would hold, he uttered an unemotional mathematical hunch: he gave it a 53-47 shot.

Noting his modern day contemptuous treatment of Michelle Bachman in debates some reporters concluded that sexism still reigns.

Hypocrisy on family values is nothing new for Gingrich, who conned idealists and moderates in Georgia alike into thinking he was one of them. “We created a monster,” said former campaign operative H. “Kip” Carter “and I will never be able to do enough good things in my lifetime to balance the scale.” After losing twice, in 1978 pit bull Gingrich went for the throat of opponent, Democratic State Senator Virginia Shapard. Gingrich said she would break up her family if she had to go to Washington and an ad pointedly said that “Newt would keep his family together.” He was simultaneously cheating on first wife Jackie while conducting this “moral values” campaign. Ray Abernathy, who ran Shapard’s campaign, said, “Newt smeared us left and right…Newt is willing to do absolutely anything to get elected and had absolutely no political beliefs at all.”

Pudgy pugilist Newt knows that contradictions between voting records and words, between reality and a hyped version of reality, scarcely matter in Twitter time. Nowhere is this clearer than his, shall we say, flexible views on combat.

He ducked Vietnam, then tried to cast it into a noble act: “There was a bigger battle in Congress,” he said. That may have surprised any number of wounded vets, but Gingrich explained, “this building decides that people die or that they are free…I see myself as the person who represents the guy in the foxhole.”

Despite his “war wimp” record, congressman Gingrich turned the Iran-Contra battle into a hatchet-style vendetta, slamming colleagues as unpatriotic — becoming, as Wisconsin Rep. David Obey said, “a poor imitation of Joe McCarthy.” Gingrich belonged to the “God Bless Ollie North” brigade, and those who disagreed were Commie lovers who should wear an “I despise America button,” he argued.

Slamming others was Newt’s forte — but not necessarily voting in sync with his rhetoric. His constant drumbeat against the “corrupt liberal welfare state” thrilled conservatives. Gingrich argued, “the government could save $277 a day per patient by encouraging home care. ” But Gingrich voted against a home care health bill that could, according to some estimates, save billions, Gingrich says the bill would have created more bureaucracy.

He railed at the “cynical compassion of the left, which shows it cares about the homeless by sleeping on a grate under TV lights for one night, and then goes home to hot showers.” And yet Gingrich voted against bills to help the homeless. His defense was that the country needed to break out of the welfare state, thus justifying not voting for bills that would help in the interim.

Reporters should examine candidate Newt’s so-called brilliant solutions, often vague or recycled from the 1994 Contract With America, which Gingrich co-authored. Detractors at the time nicknamed it Contract On America. His new version predictably would give tax cuts to the rich, repeal the federal health care law, and partially privatize Social Security. He would like to repeal abortion rights.

Controversy was good, he once said while in Congress, because it “becomes the mesmerizing event that people remember you by.”

He got his fill of controversy when he proudly bragged that he defeated House Speaker Jim Wright over ethics violations — then became the first Speaker himself to be disciplined and fined $300,000 by the Ethics Committee for 85 violations, including pocketing fundraising money from his GOPAC — which allegedly went to educational purposes. Republican colleagues joined in the lopsided vote, 395-28.

These days, Gingrich seems to be skirting the edge of the same promo-plus-politics mix that drew the attention of the Ethics Committee back then. The now millionaire and his wife number three turn campaign stops into personal book and video selling gigs — not unethical unless he uses campaign funds to line his own pockets, but a murky area for possible shell game maneuvering. It gives new meaning to the peddling of a would-be president. If a question comes up at a campaign stop, he happily announces that he covers the subject in his book which — surprise — is being sold just outside the hall. His Freddie Mac connections are now unraveling in Iowa.

Let us hope the media will stop throwing the cloak of historian/scholar respectability around Gingrich and look a lot harder at the whole package.

17 Responses to “The Real Newt Gingrich Is Only an Archive Search Away”

  1. Richard Restak says:

    Hi Myra: Carolyn forwarded me your piece which I very much enjoyed. Newt is a hypocrite, bully and general mountebank who facies himself a dragoman. Toby doesn’t like him either.

    Have a wonderful Christmas,

  2. Myra says:

    To anyone who reads this, Toby is a parrot.

  3. MarySue Foster says:

    It is amazing than in a day when so much information is available with just a few clicks — how quickly the major media folks adopt the catch phrases and hyperbole that must come directly from the candidate’s press person. Newt is a stinker. And such a pseudo intellect. What a package.

    Thanks, Myra.

  4. Jonathan Gordon says:

    Thx for posting this. Amazing that no one remembers this guy and that the worst thing you can currently read about him is that he cheated on all his wives. My recollection of Newt was that his infidelities were secondary characteristics to his overall immorality–ironic how nowadays, being a dishonest and corrupt elected official who does not uphold the Constitution (Iran Contra) does not prevent you from being a frontrunner in presidential politics but serially cheating on your wives may be the only reason you can’t win. Normally I don’t shed many tears for the “Moral Majority” but you have to feel for those folks who are going to have to answer to St Peter for voting for this guy or the mormon…

  5. Wayne says:

    Myra, this is very interesting, but you missed the REAL reason Gingrich didn’t get tenure. You need to ask those West Georgia colleagues about Newt’s philandering ways with staff & students.

  6. Janet Newcomb says:

    A story in yesterday’s LA Times about Kim Sung Il quoted a psychologist as diagnosing Kim’s personality as “malignant narcissism.” My brain went from that phrase straight to “Newt Gingrich.” He’s a joke — just one of those slow but magnetic train wrecks we can’t take our eyes off of. Let’s just move on and let his devoted wife deal with the meltdown.

  7. Patricia OBrien says:

    This is exactly what the current presidential campaign needs: the perspective of a reporter who knows the layers of a candidate’s life and career and can put the lies and shallowness of the past into an urgently needed focus on the present. Myra McPherson knows what she is talking about. Let’s make sure we’re listening.

  8. Dolores Janiewski says:

    As a historian, I really appreciate Myra MacPherson’s ability to know the difference between good historians and those who claim to be historians like Newt Gingrich. It’s also useful to have someone who remembers beyond a few weeks or even back into the last century. The claim that what has happened 15 years ago has nothing to do with the present is clearly specious as she has pointed out — Betware those who cannot remember or do not want to remember the past because social amnesia is a cripping disease. Americans need more media savy comentary like Myra MacPherson’s.

  9. Jane G says:

    Historical references no matter how recent (never mind real research
    into things past) never gets the seriousness it deserves. When one hears
    a news reader comment on something that we know should have been checked
    but wasn’t my blood boils. No one is forced to find out facts later
    than last night. Thanks for reminding us.

  10. Marthena Cowart says:

    Newt’s reputation as an “intellectual” and big thinker has been promoted by Washington pundits for years. Poor Dave Broder, for example, never seem to grasp how shallow his grand ideas really are. Real historians have looked at the pseudo historical novels and called them “turgid” and “unreadable” and full of inaccuracies. Surely, this campaign will be the end of his political ambitions. The money machine will no doubt run on forever, as long as there are weak minded folks with time and money to burn.

  11. Jay Thompson says:

    “…bringing her divorce papers instead of flowers while she recuperated from a cancer operation…”

    Just one example of innuendo-laden yellow journalism. One anecdotal mention that sums up in its entirety why Newt didn’t get tenure, the implication being he wasn’t “scholarly” enough?

    People of significantly more stature than you have acknowledged almost in chorus what you caterwaul against.

    All this piece demonstrates is that you were biased in 1989 and have hardened that bias into vitriol in 2011. Big deal.

  12. Alan Epstein says:

    Wow…Thank you Ms. MacPherson for such inciteful piece on a narcissistic fraud who does not have the intellectual honesty or moral values to ascend to the post he now seeks. I was drawn to the site (my first visit) by reference to the piece in the Morning Fix, but it has now been marked as a favorite and will become part of my regular reading. I now also understand why my Granddaughter, an aspiring journalist who lives in Puerto Rico, has made Harvard her choice when applying to colleges this year.

  13. Dori says:

    I heard Gingrich speak in person in 1980, at the World Science Fiction Convention, during his first term in Congress. He spoke about the necessity of supporting NASA and the space program, a topic guaranteed to win you popularity at a Worldcon. Having always been a politics buff, however, I was aware of his conservative record– even as a newbie in Congress. I agreed with what he SAID, of course– but something didn’t ring true. Sadly, I saw the rest of the people in the room being completely taken in by this guy. I almost had the feeling that he was trying to build a personal cadre of loyalists, rather than trying to inspire people to work for a cause. Newt was, and IS, clearly on a power trip. He certainly hasn’t improved any since then!

    What an ego, in addition to writing history to suit his whims. I wonder if a psychiatrist would diagnose him as a megalomaniac.

  14. John says:

    Nice work, Ms. MacPherson. Too bad so few of my former Fourth Estate colleagues take the time to do simple research. (Or, as in the case of Polifact, blow it.) They’re too busy looking for the next incendiary quote.

  15. Grace Mark says:

    I’ve been hoping someone would do the work (for me) of researching and reminding us all of what we knew: that the Newt is an immoral windbag. Other tidbits I’d like to know are: why was the FBI investigating his 2nd wife? Oh, yes, and what was her physical ailment when he decided to give her the old heave-ho for wifey 33.

  16. William McPherson says:

    Journalists get an idea fixed in their heads–Newt = “intellectual; Newt = “scholar”–and virtually nothing will dislodge it. So it’s just repeated over and over and over again until it becomes the conventional wisdom. Goebbels had something so say about that: “If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. ”

  17. Jeff says:

    Loved the article. Now, could you do an article on the idea that Obama is a constitutional scholar of some sort? Just because Newt claims that he is an historian and Obama claims that he is a constitutional scholar does not make either claim true.

Comments are closed.

The website is no longer being updated. Watchdog stories have a new home in Nieman Reports.