Newt Gingrich

Good Newt v Bad Newt

by E.M. | WASHINGTON, DC

EVEN fans of Newt Gingrich have always admitted that there are two sides to the man, one much less appealing than the other. On the one hand, he is well read, curious, passionate, full of energy and ideas—a genuine political thinker in an era of focus-group candidates. On the other hand, he can be impulsive, mercurial and bullying. Running a successful campaign for the Republican nomination, let alone the presidency itself, was always going to hinge on Good Newt keeping Bad Newt under wraps.

So far, however, it seems to be Bad Newt who’s hogging the limelight. Mr Gingrich signaled his heightened political ambitions last year with a series of intemperate statements: likening those who want to build a mosque near Ground Zero to Nazis, describing Barack Obama’s worldview as Kenyan and anti-colonial and so on. He recently snapped at someone who had the temerity to ask him about his louche personal life at a public event. A few weeks ago his advisers let it be known that he was about to announce the first step towards a formal candidacy and then took it all back, making his expected bid for the presidency look disorganised and faltering before it even began.

Now Mr Gingrich has added to this string of embarrassments with an acrobatic flip-flop on America’s involvement in Libya. Barely three weeks ago he told Fox News that Mr Obama should suppress the Libyan air force and establish a no-fly zone over the country right away. Yesterday he announced that a military intervention was a terrible idea to which he would never have resorted as president. Then he issued a convoluted explanation claiming these two stances were consistent, before criticising the president for his confusion and lack of resolve.

At first, the received wisdom in Washington was that Mr Gingrich was simply trying to attract a little attention with his flashy, populist remarks. They would help to bring him back into the headlines after years on the sidelines, and perhaps win round a few of the Sarah Palin mob. If so, it was a risky tactic, in that it must have reminded more moderate souls of all their misgivings about Mr Gingrich.

Anyway, it is hard to imagine that the most recent sightings of Bad Newt—hectoring a private citizen, fluffing the formal launch of his campaign and publicly heaping bluster on inconsistency—were all part of some grand media strategy. The more plausible explanation is simply that Mr Gingrich will not, if he does finally get around to declaring himself a candidate, make a very good one. He does not seem folksy and genuine enough to pass the “Who would you like to have a beer with?” test, nor level-headed, grave and statesman-like enough to pass the “Who would you want with their finger on the nuclear trigger?” test. Even if Bad Newt releases Good Newt from whatever basement he’s locked him in, gives him a shave and a haircut and sends him on the talk-show circuit, it will only make Candidate Gingrich look even more inconsistent and unpredictable. Perhaps a little quiet time in the backwaters of Iowa would be best.