October 23, 2023

The current kerfuffle in the Republican party’s attempt to select a Speaker of the House to replace Kevin McCarthy brings to mind the ascension and later resignation of Newt Gingrich as Speaker following the Republican Revolution vote of 1994.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”); } }); }); }

In that election, thanks largely to Gingrich’s Contract With America, Republicans gained fifty-four seats to garner the majority in the House for the first time in forty years. Gingrich was mainly responsible for electing a sizable number of the new, young wave of House Republican conservatives. The Republicans elected Newt as the 50th House Speaker. He served four years as Speaker and, in my opinion, deserved to serve many more.

Things started well, and in the first hundred days, the Republican House acted on all the items in the Contract. They passed bills involving tax cuts, a proposed Balanced Budget amendment, and other legislation designed to make good on Republican promises to shrink government and significantly increase the fiscal responsibility of the federal government.

Of course, our legislature is bi-cameral, and that legislation had to be agreed upon by the Senate or a compromise bill formed in a joint committee. This proved difficult, and most of the proposed bills from the House died in those committees. The Senate did not share Newt’s vision of America.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”); } }); }); }

Gingrich, working closely with the Clinton administration and Clinton himself, managed to create a balanced budget — something looked upon as impossible in today’s political climate. Their cooperative efforts also instituted various forms of tax reform to benefit the general population.

Unfortunately, at the same time Bill Clinton was working with Gingrich to insert legislation into the national agenda to benefit all of the citizenry, he was working on other forms of insertion, involving cigars and Monica Lewinsky, which eventually became public knowledge.

To his credit, Gingrich never made public statements about Clinton’s inappropriate sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. He did, however, feel that lying under oath to federal officials was an impeachable offense, and he pressed for proceedings to be brought against the President. Clinton was impeached, but as we all know, was found not guilty by the Senate.

Following the failed impeachment, Gingrich found enemies on all sides. The Democrats hated him for his part in the impeachment, along with being from the opposing party and the individual most responsible for the Republican majority. But more troublesome for his speakership, he was getting roundly criticized by many of the young Turk conservatives he had brought to Congress through his efforts in ’94.

Newt was no longer the back-bench bombthrower whom conservatives had come to love for his fiery rhetoric. He made great efforts to be a statesman, working with President Clinton to find a shared vision for a better America. The Lewinsky affair ended the teamwork that had shown such promise. It was open warfare against Gingrich on the part of the Democrats, resulting in spurious ethics charges being brought against him in 1997.

A course being taught by Gingrich at Kennesaw College, an institution in his district, was found to be partisan in nature, and Newt was found to have solicited funds for the course inappropriately. I find the notion that Newt Gingrich intentionally acted unethically to be absurd.