Jonathan Zasloff: Why Gingrich Matters

At Kleiman's digs.

I suggest reading it all, but here's the most of it:

Gingrichism is the philosophy that all means short of illegality are fair game in the struggle for political power.  He came to the fore in the House minority by personal attacks on other members’ patriotism; he stirred up the Republican base with the argument that the Democrats were not merely wrong, but evil and a threat to the Republic.  As Speaker, he destroyed the existing committee structure and bill mark-ups, did away with Congressional institutions to educate members (such as the Office of Technology Assessment or the Administrative Conference of the United States), and centralized power in the leadership.  When he did not get his way with Clinton, he cavalierly shut down the government.  Not cowed by the political disaster that ensued, he used the House’s impeachment power for political purposes and put the House Oversight Committee in the hands of Dan Burton with the express mandate to harass and cripple political opponents.  Gingrich broke institutions not by accident, but on purpose.

And if we examine the most malignant trends of the Republican Party over the last 15 years, many (although not all) of them represent this pattern of destroying institutions — and, importantly, any sense of impartiality, good faith, or nonpartisanship — for the purpose of achieving political power.  We are all arguing about who started the filibustering of judges, but it was when the Republicans took control of the Senate in 1995 that routine blocking of Presidential appointments began.  Republicans sued to prevent the counting of votes in Florida and got 5 of their hand-picked justices to go along with them.  Once ensconced in the executive branch, the Gingrichist GOP started issuing signing statements to tell its functionaries which parts of laws not to enforce; insisted that Presidential power was absolute, and ignored subpoenas.  It got rid of professionals and installed unqualified but politically loyal hacks and cronies in key positions.  Back on the Hill, Senate Republican majorities fired the Senate parliamentarian when he ruled in ways that they did not like and then shoved non-budget items into the budget to overcome filibusters.  When it lost its majority in 2006, the Republican Caucus quickly obliterated records for filibustering, attempting with great success to destroy the institution by making it completely dysfunctional.  When Barack Obama won the 2008 election, Mitch McConnell went into the complete Gingrich pose, planning to stop anything and everything offered up, refusing to negotiate in good faith, and even filibustering measures that were Republican ideas.  As for Obama himself, the Gingrichist RNC made it very clear that he was not a political opponent: like Tom Foley and the House Democratic majority, he was an enemy of the country.

As I've said before, I remember Gingrich being elected when I was just a kid. I'd only recently become politically aware. I was raised a hard-core independent (though my parents weren't very politically-aware themselves). My mom leaned liberal, my dad was conservative, but, aside from his racism, not a loon about it. I started off sympathetic to the GOP because I (correctly) perceived the USSR as the major threat to the world, but mistook the vehemence of the right's anti-communism for a commitment to human rights and democracy. I'd just started seeing that the Dems were far more rational and admirable on this score (as opposed, of course, to the fairly rare far-lefty apologists for the USSR), and that the GOP's loony, full-bore anti-communism was counter-productive, so I'd just started becoming concerned about the right. When Gingrich hit the national spotlight, I actually said out loud to myself "that guy's going to be trouble."

Anyway, I am in agreement with Zasloff on all points here, FWIW.