HOUSE SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH now relies on what staffers call “the Jupiter graph.” In meetings, Gingrich refers to the planet Jupiter and the attention devoted to the “spot” marring its appearance even though this “spot” is unimportant to understanding the planet. Gingrich sees Washington as the ” spot” on America and warns his colleagues against getting bogged down in the mechanics of Washington politics, which he says is a minor concern for most Americans. House majority leader Dick Armey agrees: “We need to get outside our little universe and be able to relate to America on this broader basis.”
That has been easier to do in recent weeks owing to Gingrich’s uncharacteristic reticence. Until March 4, the day he appeared on Murphy Brown and endorsed Bob Dole for president, he had been mostly absent from discussion of the presidential campaign. The press, not surprisingly, took notice: Syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote that Gingrich’s position seemed “sadly diminished from a year ago, while U.S. News called him ” subdued” and “strangely silent.” On February 28, The Hill, a Capitol Hill weekly, trumpeted Gingrich’s “redefined role” among House Republicans, and a few days earlier Charles Krauthammer asked in a column, “Where’s Newt?”
It’s a fair question. Since mid-January, when congressional Republicans cut their losses and agreed to reopen the government, Gingrich has spent a good chunk of time pondering what went wrong in last year’s budget negotiations. At recent meetings in Tampa and Atlanta, Gingrich labored with House aides and informal advisers to apply the lessons of 1995 to 1996. Among those called in was Owen Roberts, a management expert who advises Gingrich on long- term planning. These meetings were followed by strategy sessions in Washington with Gingrich’s inner circle of Armey, House majority whip Tom DeLay, and House Conference chairman John Boehner, as well as Gingrich pals Bill Paxon, Denny Hastert, and Bob Walker.
A taste of what came out of these meetings was on display at a February 24 town meeting in Canton, Georgia. Gingrich candidly told the audience, “I want to take the primary responsibility for maybe having just been wrong [on the balanced budget] … I couldn’t imagine the president vetoing the bill.” But don’t expect many more introspective comments. The recent meetings were aimed at outlining a Gingrich message for 1996. One of the likely themes was tried out in a March 2 speech to wildly enthusiastic Republican students at Washington & Lee University in Virginia. Amid talk of technological development, smaller government, and individual responsibility, Gingrich said: “America is a great country with good people. We can create a tremendous future.” Says Rep. David Mcintosh, freshman of Indiana, “Newt is shifting gears to go on offense for the election.”
The question, though, is whether Gingrich’s plans are threatened by his somewhat weakened position. The House was successful in passing almost all of its enormously ambitious legislative agenda last year in large part because of the speaker’s skill. But with his stature diminished, Gingrich and the House GOP leadership could find 1996 a tough slog. “The aura of infallibility [surrounding Gingrich] is gone,” says a House leadership aide.
Some of this was self-inflicted, some not. After leading Republicans to their first House majority in four decades and masterfully navigating the Contract legislation through the House, Gingrich was bound to lose some of his standing. It didn’t help that he and his program were the targets of negative ad campaigns. After being attacked for a year by unions and other Democratic groups, Gingrich must contend with the political consequences of unpopularity ratings nearly as high as Richard Nixon’s were on the eve of his resignation.
The implications of that are unclear, but one House Republican says some of his colleagues face “a political incentive to distance, if not disassociate” themselves from the speaker; “the more vulnerable the person, the more you hear them say, ‘We’ve got to do something'” to get out from under him. Another House Republican echoes this comment, saying there’s “a little bit of a feeling that we’re out there on our own and better start looking after ourselves.”
That sentiment is an outgrowth of Gingrich’s failure in the budget battle. It was abetted by Gingrich’s cooperation with the Washington Post, in a four-part, 15,000-word series in mid-January on the internal politics of the budget negotiations. The series portrayed Gingrich as inept. It opened with him “sobbing uncontrollably” over the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the financing of his college lectures and later quoted him as telling White House aides, “I melt when I’m around [Clinton].” Some House Republicans were appalled when Gingrich touted the series for its accuracy and depth. “Newt liked it more than a lot of members did,” concedes the speaker’s press secretary, Tony Blankley.
For all of his problems, though, Gingrich still holds a cherished position. “There is no one who could fill his place in our leadership,” beams Paxon. He should know: As head of the House GOP campaign committee, Paxon has seen firsthand that Gingrich is still the number-one drawing card for Republican audiences: “Every event he’s done has been a sellout.” Gingrich raised $ 3.2 million in January, and Paxon predicts he’ll raise $ 10 million by November, campaigning in 175 congressional districts.
Fund-raising prowess is a useful reminder that Gingrich, though unlikely ever to recapture the clout he held last year, will rebound from his end-of- the-year slump. With the presidential campaign shifting attention away from Congress, congressional Republicans will be able to work in a less pressured environment, freeing Gingrich from legislative mechanics. And Gingrich learns from his mistakes; colleagues say he is unlikely to repeat his stumbles of last year, Moreover, all signs point to a modest legislative agenda — crime, immigration, health care, campaign finance reform — designed to curtail the infighting.
Gingrich plans to spend the vast majority of his time this year doingwhat he does best: formulating and communicating the Republican agenda. Armey will resume the day-to-day management of the House he relinquished when Gingrich took charge in the budget endgame. “Newt will get engaged when there are issues that can’t be resolved below his level,” says Blankley. And clearer lines of authority will be established so members no longer besiege Gingrich with their problems.
One recent episode showed the speaker’s new caution. On March 5, House Republicans were deeply divided over a scaled-back regulatory reform bill scheduled for debate that day. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert refused to sign off on a specific provision, because, he said, it would devastate the environment. But House conservatives, led by Mcintosh, felt it would be better to kill the bill than move ahead without this provision.
When the two sides squared off, Gingrich remained neutral, admitting he wasn’t conversant with the specifics but wanted a deal. Boehlert repeatedly baited him with a front-page story from that day’s Wall Street Journal about Republican voters’ unease with intosh ironed out their differences. The decision reflected the belief of Gingrich and other Republicans that the party has failed to define itself adequately on the environment. The larger goal is to keep the spotlight on the substance of the issues — Jupiter — and not on fleeting Republican squabbles.
The backdrop, of course, is the 1996 presidential election, which the speaker sees as similar to the 1896 election. That contest pitted William Jennings Bryan, a young Democrat (whom Gingrich once described as “a remarkably shallow but emotionally effective demagogue”), against a more seasoned Republican, William McKinley. One of the parallels between the two campaigns is that Republicans had wrested control of the House from the Democrats in 1894, and Gingrich is hoping a Republican victory in 1996 will yield the same realignment that occurred after McKinley’s victory. Republicans occupied the White House for 28 of the next 36 years and controlled the House until 1910. There’s one fact, however, that Gingrich the historian shouldn’t overlook: Though they captured the White House, Republicans suffered a net loss of 40 seats in the House in 1896 — and two years later they replaced their speaker.
by Matthew Rees
