Recent Catholic convert and likely Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich is profiled in the latest issue of Esquire magazine, with his second (of three) wife giving her first interview since the couple’s very public and very dramatic divorce.
It’s the kind of salaciously sensational writing that appeals to politicos who long for TMZ and People with a political bent (much like Game Change, the off-the-record filled tome following the 2008 election). So taken with a grain of salt, the article offers an interesting glimpse at the man who wants to take on President Obama.
Marianne Gingrich says that Newt proposed to her while his first wife lay in hospital recovering from surgery, never telling her that he was still married (he supposedly proposed to his current wife while still married to Marianne). Marianne claims that Gingrich is an empty man who is guided not by principles, but by a continuous lust for power. Yet she concedes that he is good at what he does, despite his shortcomings.
Gingrich is described as a conservative pragmatist who works with his ideological opponents to get things done. He had a role in the balanced budget under President Clinton, and the steps taken to ensure the solvency of social security and Medicare. He encourages Tea Party members to be riled up and angry, but he is more nuanced on immigration and taxes than most of the GOP base. He has been caught up in several shady political action committee structures, with money coming and going at such a rapid rate no one can seem to trace it at all. He raises more than all his potential GOP rivals combined, and he says that his decision to run in 2012 will be, “up to God and the American people.”
Does a politician’s personal life prohibit him or her from holding office? I don’t think so, but one quote from Marianne, if true, speaks volumes about Gingrich. At the time when Marianne discovered her ex-husband had been carrying on a years-long affair with another woman, he was giving morality laden speeches to the American public. Upset, she confronted him about the talks, and he replied: “It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”
It’s one thing to preach morality and then fail to live up to your own lofty ideal; it’s human and we’re all guilty of it now and then. It’s another to build a career destroying others, moralizing day in and day out, and to lead a life that doesn’t come close to the ideal that you impose on others. That’s called being a hypocrite. Leaders, even good leaders, can be lots of things—ambitious, narcissistic, and perhaps even philandering—but they can’t be hypocrites. Hypocrites cannot lead, and Newt Gingrich is a hypocrite. Let’s hope the American people see this come November 2012.
UPDATE: Here is Stephen Colbert's take on Gingrich's moral compass.
Michael O'Loughlin
How privileged, Michael O'Loughlin, you are to get this platform to level nothing but a politically motivated insult at another human being.
Shameful.
That you point out Mr. Gingrich's ongoing effort to be seen as blameless whilst blaming (or perhaps ''faithful'' whilst ''unfaithful'') isn't shameful or abusive; rather, it appropriately portrays the active avoidance of honesty and just disclosure by a leader in power. What grieves me is not so much Mr. Gingrich's party affiliation, nor his political disposition, nor his stance on marriage, be heterosexual, homosexual, or lacking, but rather his unwillingness to recognize his own apparent struggles and shortcomings.
After a few weeks rest from Michael S. Winter's ad hominem attack on Glen Beck as an idiot we now have Michael O'Loughlin continue ad hominem attacks on Newt Gingrich as a hyocrite.
This is extermely poor and artless scholarship summing the complex and extensive thoughts of both men with ??????school yard name calling. Caho?lic scholarship is having anot?????????????her very bad day ?again. ?It is really a disgrace for this article to be published in America magazine?.? ? ?R?eader's expect higher standards of agumentation??.?
You accuse Gingrich of being a 'hypocrite' for 'build(ing) a career destroying others' On top of that, what words can convey the level of self-deception inherent in this hypocritical whopper of an accusation by an America blog writer: that Gingrich 'moraliz(es) day in and day out, (but)… lead(s) a life that doesn’t come close to the ideal that (he) impose on others'?
Gingrich is no more flawed in his character than dozens of leaders in recent times, including persons who have run for president, who have been elected president, and who have been celebrated after their death for leadership in liberal causes Your problem with Gingrich seems to be simply that he is an effective communicator of conservative ideas. And you know it.
Gingrich has to this credit years of successful origninal policy initiatives such as the "Contract with America" where deficit spending was stopped for a number of years when he was Speaker of the House. It is very crude and low life to name call anyone but especially someone whohas great insight and experience on American affsirs. Gingrich is a voice that should be heard. Soemthing is very wrong when such as talented comentator is dismissed out of hand.
This article is a very distructive personal attack on a person who is very talented and knowledable and concerned about American soiciety. Gingrich should be heard and allowed to offer his ideas and comments. The attack on Gringich is very crude and makes no sense at all. Why personaaly attack Gingrich for speaking what he beleives to be true? Who is Michael O'Loughlin to be judge and jury of other people's worthyness to speak on public issues, policies and ideas? Nowadays one can not expect all Catholics to be liberal Democrats, this is not the 1920s anymore .
So I suppose left wing dictators such as Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Kim il Sung were/are not authoritarian. The left are authoritarians since their origin in the French revolution as they so graciously chopped off the heads of anyone they didn't like. They have been the true authoritarians since the demise of dynastic governments which were the 'right' at the time of the French revolution. The use of the term 'right' was used by Stalin to demonize anyone who was against him. It was a ploy which today's liberals try to perpetuate. However, the original 'right' no longer exist in most of the world so is essentially a meaningless term in terms of its original definition. An exception is in many Middle Eastern countries where dynastic families still exist.
The right by common usage in the rest of the world today are those opposed to the left and are for liberty for all and prefer a world of little government intervention in order to maximize that freedom.
So that makes all those left wing dictators, right wing. I am glad you cleared things up.
(Incidentally, I actually heard an interesting counter on EWTN once to objections about the alleged legalism, hair-splitting, etc. in the Church about marriage. Fr. Trigilio (sp?) said that coming up to a priest and asking for a quick answer on whether they can get married or not, etc., and not wanting to take the time to investigate all the issues over past marriages, is like coming up to a doctor and asking her/him to pronounce on your health without truly examining you. Of course one could make objections to all this, but it's still interesting.)
“The actions of men are the best interpreters of their thoughts.” John Locke, in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689), Book I, Chapter II, paragraph 3
You are right that if this quote from the ex-wife is true that Gingrich would be saying one thing but doing another (hypocrite). On the other hand if it is not true then the ex-wife is bearing false witness. There is a third possibility that the quote from Gingrich is a paraphrase that is not fully in context. Do you know if the author asked Gingrich to respond to the quote prior to publication? If they did not at least give him the opportunity then this is very bad journalism and I would not even read it.
I am curious if America Magazine only speaks harshly about conservatives or is this going to be a regular habit across the political spectrum. Can we expect Amercia Magazine to harshly critisize Democratic politicians? I won't hold my breath since you are much more charitable than Fox News.
feel better now?
When you look at someone who says one thing and does another, consistently, you have to perceive a kind of double exposure image. Sometimes the rose colored prescription that conservatives wear when looking at their own heroes must be able to compensate for this.
I will be happy to listen to Gingrich's conservative ideas until the cows come home, and I will be just as happy to follow all of them as he does the ones on marriage. The danger to traditional marriage comes not from homosexual unions, but from heterosexual unions like his.
And then another reader accuses O'Loughlin of gossip-laden dishonesty and partisan hypocrisy for an "attack" on Sarah Palin. Why, she is the Queen of gossip-laden dishonesty and partisan hypocrisy.
I don't want to sound rude or uncharitable, but you should really think about taking your Fox News talking points somewhere they might be appreciated.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, serial adulterer and hypocrite
John F. Kennedy, serial adulterer and hypocrite.
Edward Kennedy, serial adulterer and hypocirte
William Clinton, serial adulterer and hypocrite
The list goes on but these are just top of mind and maybe we can add Al Gore to the list. And I bet the people who run America magazine were/are enthralled with each of the above.
The term right as used in today's lexicon mean liberty and freedom and is associated with libertarianism. So right and authoritarian are contradictory terms.
Try google. And read "The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemeyer. He's been researching the authoritarian personality disorder for decades.
Doesn't matter were on the ideological spectrum the dictator's ideology falls.
Their disordered personalities are always RWA.
Dictator = Right-Wing Authoritarian
It's very RWA to deny 70+ years (starting before WWII) of empirical research conducted on hundred of thousands of individuals worldwide by numerous researchers. Just sayin'.
?
Left-wing ideology or right-wing ideology, dictators are all Right-Wing Authoritarian disordered personalities. And, they need RWA followers regardless of whether the dictator's ideology is left or right. RWAs are natural-born followers.
There's a simple distinction here between ideology and personality.