T A B L E_.T A L K

Which weekly news magazine do you prefer, and why? Discuss your sources in the Media area of Table Talk

- - - - - - - - - -

R E C E N T L Y

Weep and read it
By James Poniewozik
Books are alive, well and as sentimentalized as ever
(11/10/98)

I wrote about Michiko Kakutani and lived to tell the tale
By Susan Lehman
(11/05/98)

Freshen up your election, hon?
By James Poniewozik
Politicians and pollsters, run! It's the attack of -- 60-foot Waitress Mom!
(11/03/98)

Proust, eat my dust jacket! Writers obsess over Amazon.com's sales ranking numbers
By Susan Lehman
Plus: Musical chairs at women's mags, Hillary hits up Drudge and much more
(10/29/98)

Oprah Winfrey, journalist?
By James Poniewozik
The J-word is up for grabs, if anybody still wants it
(10/27/98)

- - - - - - - - - -

BROWSE THE
MEDIA CIRCUS
ARCHIVE

The amazing disappearing newt

AFTER THE REPUBLICANS HAVE PICKED OVER THE CARNAGE OF THE FORMER SPEAKER'S CAREER, NEWT WILL VANISH INTO HISTORICAL THIN AIR, LEAVING ONLY THE HOLLOW EULOGIES OF A MISGUIDED PUNDIT CULTURE.

Twenty years from now, Newt Gingrich will be a mere blip on the radar screen of history. That he is presently seen as a major historical figure, "the most important speaker in a generation," as the Los Angeles Times put it when he announced his departure from Congress and the speakership Friday, speaks to the way our sense of history has been warped by more than just technology's acceleration of time. It's been warped by a self-interested pundit culture for whom someone or something is important simply because the pundit culture bore witness to it.

Mesmerized as pundits and commentators are by electronic grandstanding, the media has been seduced into making Gingrich important because that in turn makes the media important. I was there when Newt was speaker, the pundits imagine intoning to their journalistic grandchildren, like Edward R. Murrow's reporting from the London ruins of World War II.

It's not to say, of course, that Gingrich has been entirely irrelevant or utterly insignificant. But he's been important to the history of American politics in the same way Boy George is important to the history of rock 'n' roll -- not for anything of substance he's done, but for the way he's embodied changes that were always beyond his control and would have happened if he had never existed. Any reasonable consideration of the 1994 election in which Republicans took control of Congress -- for which Gingrich is routinely credited as architect, mastermind, Moses -- that takes into account for a single moment how people outside Washington see things must conclude that Gingrich had almost nothing to do with it. To the extent Gingrich had an impact on the 1994 election at all, it was as a tactician. But tactics are only the math of history, not the meaning.

In terms of meaning, the 1994 election was about two things. The first was a dismay -- ranging from indifferent disappointment to indignant rage -- with the president the country had just elected two years earlier. The second was a political movement out in the hinterlands reaching the apex of its power, self-described as "Christian" but more accurately characterized by an ever-darkening suspicion that democracy is by nature morally degenerate and a betrayal of God, who at the very least deserves an American theocracy, if not something purer and more blood-stirring. In this sense, religious right pooh-bah Gary Bauer is more important to American politics in the '90s than Gingrich ever was.

At best, Gingrich's rise was the last absurd spasm of conservatism's exhaustion. Whether one likes it or not, when conservatives argue they have won the war of political ideas over the last two decades, they're right: Their basic premise, that the less the government is involved in people's lives the better, has become accepted in principle by everyone from the majority of the public to the moderate-liberal in the White House who balanced the budget and "reformed" welfare. Gingrich had almost nothing to do with winning this war. It was won in small part by Ronald Reagan, who sold the argument more by force of personality than force of intellect and thereby was able to finesse the things about conservatism that were harsh and unpalatable, and in larger part by the assorted failures of liberalism, some perceived and some real.

Gingrich's impact on America came not so much from his rise to the speakership but in his fall, when he quickly became the most loathed political figure of our time and in the process provided conservatism's limits and meanest impulses with a name and face. The one thing the pundit culture has gotten right in the last few days is just how much President Clinton owes him.

The only people who have tacitly acknowledged how incidental Gingrich has really been all along are the congressional Republicans. Like vultures picking over some ripe dead heap in the Mojave, they squawked among themselves about how perfectly delicious he was -- what is it they kept calling him? A "visionary"? But now, having had their fill, they've wasted no time taking flight before his carcass bloats with the gas of death. After all of the eulogies advanced on this past Sunday's talkfests by all the prospective speakers and majority leaders and whips and conference chairmen, after the pontifications of Gingrich's Monday night speech to GOPAC, before the current Time and Newsweek covers have barely hit the garbage, you'll be scratching your head trying to remember who the hell he was, and recalling only that he was something unpleasant enough to stick to the ceiling of your brain for a while. Gingrich isn't just out-of-sight-out-of-mind, he's out-of-sight-out-of-memory; and because the true consequences of his political life amount more to a confluence of ego and opportunity than to a historical moment that really changed anything, soon he'll be out-of-memory-out-of-history. With all due respect to the Los Angeles Times, he was not the most important speaker in a generation. In the way he constrained the rough passions of the Reagan presidency 10 years ago, Tip O'Neill was more important, cartoon political hack though the media portrayed him as and though he may have truly been.

Ensconced in Washington and New York, the political media is so famously incapable of seeing the forest for the trees that its myopia has become a part of its self-identity. The TV commentators in particular seem to take a certain pride in being completely clueless, in being completely untouched by any experience outside politics -- the movies people are seeing, the books they're reading, the music they're listening to -- or by anything resembling American life beyond Washington. Ironically, it's the same pundits who sold us the nonsense that the 1994 election was a national ratification of Gingrich's Contract With America who also insisted all over the airwaves last Tuesday night that the 1998 election was in no way a referendum on impeachment. It's breathtaking that an entire stratum of opinionmakers can get it so backwards and be so sweepingly wrong.

In a strange and complicated way, the media's collusion in the invention of Newt Gingrich, Historical Figure, is not unlike its relationship with Clinton. It's a relationship of seduction and self-loathing: Ever since his election as president, the pundit culture has hated itself for the way it once loved Clinton long, long ago, and therefore, still traumatized by 30 years of charges of liberal bias, it elevated Gingrich as the Anti-Clinton to punish itself for this seduction. It might have even fallen in love with Gingrich too, if Gingrich hadn't been so beyond all lovability. Because they don't get outside Washington, what the pundits never understood was how Gingrich failed to become a truly national figure, in contrast to Clinton, who may or may not be a good president but has learned, sometimes inelegantly, to be a national figure if nothing else, whether as consoler-in-chief weeping at the caskets of embassy workers that come rolling off the planes from Africa or defiler-in-chief debauching all our promising American nubiles with a cigar.