Gingrich’s meaningless passionate intensity
Paul Nachman writes:
A lovely sentence about Gingrich. My boldface:
I think Gingrich has the intensity and the understanding of the importance of the moment that many Republican voters are looking for—he radiates a sense that the choice before us is utterly crucial and decisive (even if one sometimes gets the impression that he would radiate the same sense when asked to choose between paper and plastic), and with regard to the coming election a lot of Republicans share that sense.
That’s by Yuval Levin at NRO.
LA replies:
Yes, but Levin should not have put the bolded phrase in parentheses, because the phrase is crucial to the sentence, as it shows that his main point about Gingrich—that “he radiates a sense that the choice before us is utterly crucial and decisive”—is bogus.
Further, one doesn’t just “sometimes” get the impression that Gingrich would radiate the same sense of absolute urgency when asked to choose between paper and plastic. One always gets that impression, because Gingrich always radiates the sense of absolute urgency, whatever he’s talking about. Which shows that his urgency is meaningless. Anyone who takes Gingrich seriously is madly deluding himself. Which means that 37 percent of Republicans are now madly deluding themswelves.
LA adds:
The entire article is worth reading. Levin shows the striking similarities of belief between Romney and Gingrich—they are both basically technocrat Rockefeller Republicans who have flip-flopped on the same issues. At the same time, he adds, their temperaments could not be more different. Romney is a natural executive and is self-disciplined. Gingrich is wildly undisciplined and is temperamentally a revolutionary.
From which I draw the conclusion that Levin points to but doesn’t make explicit: if the choice is between two Rockefeller Republicans with very similar ideological profiles, pick the disciplined and organized one who has executive abilities, not the hot air machine.
- end of initial entry -
December 7
Shrewsbury writes:
Mr. Auster writes:
From which I draw the conclusion that Levin points to but doesn’t make explicit: if the choice is between two Rockefeller Republicans with very similar ideological profiles, pick the disciplined and organized one who has executive abilities, not the hot air machine.
But Shrewsbury wonders: Do we really want a disciplined, organized executive who will prop up the rotting corpse of liberalism into a ghastly imitation of life for eight more years? Wouldn’t even the crazed Gingrich be better? If we want the china shop destroyed, should we not prefer a bull to a careful attendant? In fact Shrewsbury is not entirely certain which of the two candidates to prefer, that is, which one would be least bad for the historical American people; but one thing he is sure of is that we ought to be pretty sick and tired of watching Republican presidents perform the role of Rescuer of Liberalism (whilst the liberals shriek at the unfairness of it all, like little children sent to bed for an hour’s nap)—as every one of them starting with Herbert Hoover has done. And Shrewsbury (and he may be deluded) sees more potential in Gingrich than in Romney for kicking out at least some of the props. Alas.
LA replies:
Please note that I am not advocating for Romney. I said that if one’s choice is between Gingrich and Romney, then one should choose Romney. But I have not said that my choice is between Gingrich and Romney.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 06, 2011 09:49 PM | Send