Observations of an ex pat: Blame Newt

Embed from Getty Images

The blame for today’s polarised world is most often laid at the door of President Trump. He is credited with climbing to power on the back of colourfully-worded hate politics and of providing the inspiration for Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummins, Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Germany’s Alternative for Deutschland.

But who inspired Trump? The answer is the former Speaker of the US House of Representatives Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich was—still is—a staunchly conservative Republican from the deep south state of Georgia who entered the political arena in the 1970s when southern Democrats were shifting to the liberal left in a vain effort to retain power in the South in the aftermath of the civil rights campaign. Gingrich believed that the answer to the loss to the conservatives was to replace it with a radicalised and more conservative Republican Party.

Key to his goal was gaining Republican control of the House of Representatives. It was a difficult task because the Democrats had held the majority in the lower house of Congress since 1956. By the 1994 mid-terms, Gingrich had climbed through the congressional party ranks to become House Minority Whip and a power within the Republicans. And then, only six weeks before polling day, he launched a far-right manifesto entitled “Contract with America.”

The manifesto was a success. The Republicans won control of the House. But the tactics used to win that control were as important—if not more so—than the party policies. Before Gingrich the conventional political wisdom was that in the two-party system the route to political success was through the capture of the political centre ground.

Gingrich argued that the Republican base could be expanded by focusing on capturing the far right of the political spectrum. To achieve this he introduced a new emotive political lexicon. Whenever discussing rival Democrats, Republican politicians would pepper their speeches with negatively-charged words such as radical, sick, traitors, betray, lie and decay. Positively-charged words such as courageous, brave, wise and principled and opportunity were used to describe anything involving the Republican Party. Gingrich’s lexicon became official party policy and was circulated in 1990 by GOPAC, the Republican Party’s training organisation for elected officials, under the title “Language, a Key Mechanism of Control.”

Another of Gingrich’s contributions was “wedge issues.” These are carefully selected emotive subjects which can be boiled down to a simplified sound bite which appeals to an easily identifiable demographic. The purpose of a wedge issue is to force your opponents into an opposing position, leaving the voters to choose between what is portrayed as two extremes in which just as many will vote against as for a policy. Successful wedge issue topics in America include race, immigration, crime, national security, abortion, gay rights and religion. In recent years in the UK they included many of the same subjects with the addition of Brexit.

Gingrich’s success paid dividends. He was named Time Magazine’s Man of the Year in 1994 and elected Speaker of the House. Unfortunately for Newt, his tenure at the top of the greasy political poll was cut short. Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Gingrich during his term as Speaker. One of them stuck—a claim for tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. As a result, the House officially reprimanded its Speaker for the first time in history.

Gingrich was Speaker during the Monica Lewinsky affair and the driving force behind President Clinton’s impeachment in the House. But while Gingrich was attacking presidential morals, he was himself in the middle of an extra-marital affair with a Congressional staffer 23 years younger than him.

The Republicans retained their majority in the 1998 elections, but lost four seats. The unexpectedly poor showing combined with criticism of Gingrich’s low life and divisive tactics to force his resignation from Congress. But the Georgia Republican’s career was far from over. In 2012 he came close to winning the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. In 2016, he decided against running, but was an early supporter of Donald Trump and acted as a consultant on his campaign. He was reported to have been on a shortlist of three for the job of Trump’s running mate, but by then was more interested in his lucrative career as a writer, broadcaster and highly-paid after dinner speaker.

Donald Trump has used the tactics pioneered by Gingrich to great effect in adjusting the American system of checks and balances to the advantage of the presidency. Gingrich’s political strategy was also carefully studied in Britain and reached its fruition with the 2016 Brexit referendum and the post-referendum battle. The long and acrimonious debate raised disturbing underlying attitudes on immigration, race and national identity. It has also weakened parliament’s power to act as a check on the powers of an executive prime minister.

This week, the Cambridge University-based Centre for the Future of Democracy reported that 60.3 percent of the British electorate were unhappy with their political system. The researchers said that there was a global trend of falling trust in the ability of democratic politics to deliver good government—in the US and everywhere else in the world where they have adopted the Anglo-Saxon political model. Totalitarian countries—such as Russia and China—and countries which describe themselves as “Illiberal managed democracies”—such as Hungary and Turkey—are actively using the dissatisfaction and polarisation in Britain and America to argue that parliamentary democracy is the politics of the past.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and author of “The Encyclopedia of the War” and the recently published “America Made in Britain". He has a weekly podcast, Transatlantic Riff.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • A fine article, Tom, which accords with my own observation of events, but adds stuff I didn’t really know. The obvious question is this: how can liberal democratic politics learn from such strategies, and adapt them for our own causes, while remaining true to our ethics? It will require imagination, hard work and discipline.

  • I agree with TA Gilbert a good article.
    A problem I feel with the way LDV works, is that other than adding a congratulatory comment there is little to give authors feedback; I’ve tended to note that those articles which have encouraged more thoughtful reading and consideration get very little feedback, giving the misleading impression that there is little of interest or value in the article. Don’t know how to address this other than assume that LDV are making full use of the web traffic analytics working off the data people’s Internet browsers provide and giving authors some feedback based on this.

    This article reminded me of another hot topic, which has all the characteristics of a “wedge issue”, namely Huawei and their involvement in 5G. One of the things that has been missing from the Huawei ‘debate’ has been consideration of US interests that lie behind the subject selection. My memory trigger was the Newt Tweet:
    British decision to accept Huawei for 5G is a major defeat for the United Statees. How big does Huawei have to get and how many countries have to sign with Huawei for the US government to realize we are losing the internet to China? This is becoming an enormous strategic defeat.

    The US has always been a laggard in the mobile space. GSM came about largely because the European telcos and equipment manufacturers got together, they repeated this with 3G, albeit with greater participation by others – the US largely missed out on this and only really got a slice of the action after some highly questionable lobbying of the White House by Qualcomm and the White House putting pressure on the Europeans… and things haven’t got any better. Currently the four big 5G players are: Huawei, Nokia, Ericsson and Samsung – ie. not one US company.

    From this perspective we can see the game being played: play on people’s fears of security and China, with the intent of slowing Europe’s roll-out of 5G technologies and associated economic activities, because as was demonstrated with GSM, 2G, 3G and 4G Europe (and the rest of the world) has benefited to a far greater extent than the US…

    Lesson: Trump wasn’t lying when he said “America first”.

  • A well argued article, but I entirely disagree with the “Blame Newt” mindset as vocalised in your title.

    Reactionary politics thrives and succeeds under conditions of economic inequality & corruption. Sadly, so called Liberal presidencies, Clinton & Obama, made situations far worse. I’m thinking of Clinton’s deregulation of banking whilst enacting draconian criminal justice reforms and austerity welfare reforms. Or Obama allowing a system of legalised bribery to arise, whilst income inequality spiralled out of control.

    To often liberals fertilise the ground for illiberalism to thrive. If we really want to defeat reactionary populism for good we need to significantly reduce economic disparities & remove Big Money from politics entirely.

  • Jack – “Or Obama allowing a system of legalised bribery to arise” – it was the conservative-dominated Supreme Court that pulled through the Citizen United. Obama’s fault was that he tried to reach out to the GOP too much for the sake of bipartisanship, while underutilized his huge grassroot Obama for America Coalition.

    “I’m thinking of Clinton’s deregulation of banking whilst enacting draconian criminal justice reforms and austerity welfare reforms” – Well, had Mario Cuomo run for Presidency in 1992, he could have prevented Clinton. Anyway, a Clinton Presidency was generally bound to happen after the Dukakis disaster in 1988.

  • I don’t recognise the picture Jack paints. Perhaps he’d like to explain more? Admittedly I’m 5000km away, but I remember both Clinton and Obama as presidents who, while they made some mistakes, governed far better than Trump and Bush. I followed the Clinton administration quite closely at the time; I wonder if you are aware of the even harsher welfare bills Clinton vetoed, which were passed by Gingrich? And he certainly did not preside over ‘austerity’ – US growth rates were 3 and 4% per annum, I think – rates we can only dream of, now. Whatever Bernie says about inequality, I’m not sure there is much support for the sort of welfare dependency which built up before PRWORA.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Jeff
    Marco 12th Apr '24 - 10:01pm: The right wing media dont bother to defend Brexit anymore... As someone who reads across the political spectrum ...
  • Katharine Pindar
    What a refreshing discussion started by William, warning but also encouraging us. I think we can go strong on climate change policies, as you suggest, William -...
  • Simon McGrath
    “ Technically speaking, Israel is a democracy” Well yes. Alas Israeli’s have elected a dreadful government but the key is they elected them. And yes it...
  • David Allen
    Chris Moore, I'll be delighted if the party can prove me wrong!...
  • Chris Moore
    @David Allen: Paul Marshall is long gone from the party. Social Liberalism is the dominant current of thinking . You'd need to back up your slightly cyni...