What do you think?
Rate this book
Burning Down the House: Newt Gingrich, the Fall of a Speaker, and the Rise of the New Republican Party
The story of how Newt Gingrich and his allies tainted American politics, launching an enduring era of brutal partisan warfare
When Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, President Obama observed that Trump "is not an outlier; he is a culmination, a logical conclusion of the rhetoric and tactics of the Republican Party." In Burning Down the House, historian Julian Zelizer pinpoints the moment when our country was set on a path toward an era of bitterly partisan and ruthless politics, an era that was ignited by Newt Gingrich and his allies. In 1989, Gingrich brought down Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Wright and catapulted himself into the national spotlight. Perhaps more than any other politician, Gingrich introduced the rhetoric and tactics that have shaped Congress and the Republican Party for the last three decades. Elected to Congress in 1978, Gingrich quickly became one of the most powerful figures in America not through innovative ideas or charisma, but through a calculated campaign of attacks against political opponents, casting himself as a savior in a fight of good versus evil. Taking office in the post-Watergate era, he weaponized the good government reforms newly introduced to fight corruption, wielding the rules in ways that shocked the legislators who had created them. His crusade against Democrats culminated in the plot to destroy the political career of Speaker Wright.
While some of Gingrich's fellow Republicans were disturbed by the viciousness of his attacks, party leaders enjoyed his successes so much that they did little collectively to stand in his way. Democrats, for their part, were alarmed, but did not want to sink to his level and took no effective actions to stop him. It didn't seem to matter that Gingrich's moral conservatism was hypocritical or that his methods were brazen, his accusations of corruption permanently tarnished his opponents. This brand of warfare worked, not as a strategy for governance but as a path to power, and what Gingrich planted, his fellow Republicans reaped. He led them to their first majority in Congress in decades, and his legacy extends far beyond his tenure in office. From the Contract with America to the rise of the Tea Party and the Trump presidential campaign, his fingerprints can be seen throughout some of the most divisive episodes in contemporary American politics. Burning Down the House presents the alarming narrative of how Gingrich and his allies created a new normal in Washington.
When Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, President Obama observed that Trump "is not an outlier; he is a culmination, a logical conclusion of the rhetoric and tactics of the Republican Party." In Burning Down the House, historian Julian Zelizer pinpoints the moment when our country was set on a path toward an era of bitterly partisan and ruthless politics, an era that was ignited by Newt Gingrich and his allies. In 1989, Gingrich brought down Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Wright and catapulted himself into the national spotlight. Perhaps more than any other politician, Gingrich introduced the rhetoric and tactics that have shaped Congress and the Republican Party for the last three decades. Elected to Congress in 1978, Gingrich quickly became one of the most powerful figures in America not through innovative ideas or charisma, but through a calculated campaign of attacks against political opponents, casting himself as a savior in a fight of good versus evil. Taking office in the post-Watergate era, he weaponized the good government reforms newly introduced to fight corruption, wielding the rules in ways that shocked the legislators who had created them. His crusade against Democrats culminated in the plot to destroy the political career of Speaker Wright.
While some of Gingrich's fellow Republicans were disturbed by the viciousness of his attacks, party leaders enjoyed his successes so much that they did little collectively to stand in his way. Democrats, for their part, were alarmed, but did not want to sink to his level and took no effective actions to stop him. It didn't seem to matter that Gingrich's moral conservatism was hypocritical or that his methods were brazen, his accusations of corruption permanently tarnished his opponents. This brand of warfare worked, not as a strategy for governance but as a path to power, and what Gingrich planted, his fellow Republicans reaped. He led them to their first majority in Congress in decades, and his legacy extends far beyond his tenure in office. From the Contract with America to the rise of the Tea Party and the Trump presidential campaign, his fingerprints can be seen throughout some of the most divisive episodes in contemporary American politics. Burning Down the House presents the alarming narrative of how Gingrich and his allies created a new normal in Washington.
368 pages, Hardcover
Published April 28, 2020
188 people are currently reading
2082 people want to read
About the author
Julian E. Zelizer
37 books63 followersJulian E. Zelizer is the Malcolm Stevenson Forbes, Class of 1941 Professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews
June 7, 2020
First and foremost, a large thank you to NetGalley, Julian E. Zelizer, and Penguin Press for providing me with a copy of this publication, which allows me to provide you with an unbiased review.
Seeking a hit of good American politics, I turned to this piece by Julian E. Zelizer, which recounts the rise and power change brought on by Newt Gingrich’s time in the US House of Representatives, which culminated in a position as Speaker of the House. Zelizer opens the book with some biographical commentary about Newton ‘Newt’ Gingrich, whose conservative views seemed almost inherent in a household where rules were strict. His formative years saw him push the boundaries and rebel in his own way in rural Georgia, though he was always one to seek out the political side of any argument or group, hoping to imbue his strong opinions. His political leanings were always towards the Republican right, even in the heart of Georgia, which was undergoing a political transformation. With the fallout from Watergate, Gingrich sought to re-invent the GOP and make a difference not only in the grassroots of the party, but from within the walls of power, which for him meant the US House of Representatives. Gritty and determined, Gingrich campaigned to win a seat, which he did in 1978’s mid-term elections, beginning a rabble-rousing career as soon as he was elected. Zelizer shows that Gingrich, even as a new congressman, did not sit quietly and sought attention wherever he could get it. The House was strongly in the Democrats’ hands, but Gingrich knew that his tenacity and cutthroat tactics could turn the tables, even if it took a while. Not always the friend of the Administration—though he strongly supported Reagan in 1980 —Gingrich continued his push to rebrand the House in a more conservative manner, mainly by targeting Democrats who violated some of the more basic rules. As the narrative progresses through some of the more controversial statements and sentiments by Gingrich, he seemed always to know when to speak and how to get the word out, even in times of Republican gaffes, particularly Reagan’s Iran Contra Affair. While the Democrats held onto power through the end of the Reagan Administration, a new Speaker of the House was chosen, one Jim Wright, who became the focus of Gingrich’s attention as he sought to pull apart the Democrats’ control of the House, brick by brick. Through a series of scandals, Gingrich laid the groundwork for the dismantling of Wright—a longtime and well-regarded political figure—in a highly embarrassing way. Gingrich may have set things in motion, but he need not get his hands dirty. Fighting to define himself within the House Republicans, Gingrich secured a key position of power in 1989 when he won the role of Minority Whip, with hopes of ascending from there. He would have to bide his time, but had finally tasted victory and continued to push things to the right, as the House teetered under Democratic leadership into the 1990s. In a flash final chapter, Zelizer describes Gingrich’s rise to power by toppling the Democrats’ control of the House, but also brought down the centre-right George H.W. Bush from winning re-election. His rise to the speakership was a flash in the book, as Gingrich found himself in a scandal all his own. However, his imprint lasted on the Republican Party in the House and helped create the Tea Party movement that emerged in the 2010 mid-term elections. Even though he fared poorly in his 2012 run for president and was not chosen as Trump’s running mate in 2016, Newt Gingrich is not a man soon to be forgotten. Recommended to those who love the inner workings of congressional politics, as well as the reader who loves to see how power and patience can topple any political Goliath.
I was pleasantly surprised with this book and the approach that Julian E. Zelizer took. While one might have expected a piece that pushed Newt Gingrich into the centre of the narrative and used the US political situation as a backdrop, Zelizer did the opposite. Gingrich is present throughout the narrative, but it is more his wheeling and dealing that proves to be a thread and the fallout from it. The narrative is rich with political goings-on in Congress throughout the 1980s and into the 90s, where Gingrich was present, but it was more about how the man could turn the story on its ear and the political machine worked itself out, inevitably to Gingrich’s desired outcomes. Zelizer does a masterful job in exploring the inner workings of the congressional struggles and how both major parties handled things, enriching his narrative with much detail and strong quotes. For the politically curious reader, this gave an almost behind-the-scenes look into how things transpired, as well as the fighting to hold onto power. I was too young to fully appreciate politics of any country in the 1980s and early 90s, but do remember Gingrich when he made it to the Speaker’s chair, so this was all new and highly educational as I learned of things that took place when I was only a lad. This book is not the Newt Gingrich dog and pony show, but highlights the man’s rise to power in reaction to much of what was going on within the House of Representatives and how Gingrich used this to redefine the narrative. With thorough chapters that cover many of the incidents and a keen bird’s eye view of how things progressed in the media and within congressional meeting rooms, the reader can see how power seemed almost to come to Gingrich, who used patience and perseverance to get what he wanted. I loved this approach and thoroughly enjoyed the historical narrative that kept Gingrich as part but not the central character throughout. This subtle approach made the book much more palatable, especially since I am by no means a fan of the right-wing of the GOP. Even mention and discussion about how the eventual Tea Party emerged had me interested and wanting to know more. If I had to offer a criticism, it would be that the final chapter sought to explore too much in too short a time. I am not sure if Zelizer ran out of steam, had an editor who offered a page limitation, or did not want to undertake the research, but Gingrich and his rise to the speakership through to his departure is all packed into a few pages. This does the book and the reader a disservice. Perhaps Zelizer is offering this as a teaser for a follow-up book, but this anti-climactic occurrence makes the premise (Gingrinch’s hunger for power) seem like a discussion that should be shelved. Why climb a mountain and not talk of the view? A man that Zelizer discussed as a potential running mate for Trump in 2016, Newt Gingrich certainly had a strong influence on the move to the right by Congress, though did so in such a way that it seemed almost necessary to rid the country of the nightmares the Democrats left during their long House control.
Kudos, Mr. Zelizer, for this fabulous book that taught me so very much. I loved it and hope to find more of your work in this vein, to educate me even more about the intricacies of the US political system.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
Seeking a hit of good American politics, I turned to this piece by Julian E. Zelizer, which recounts the rise and power change brought on by Newt Gingrich’s time in the US House of Representatives, which culminated in a position as Speaker of the House. Zelizer opens the book with some biographical commentary about Newton ‘Newt’ Gingrich, whose conservative views seemed almost inherent in a household where rules were strict. His formative years saw him push the boundaries and rebel in his own way in rural Georgia, though he was always one to seek out the political side of any argument or group, hoping to imbue his strong opinions. His political leanings were always towards the Republican right, even in the heart of Georgia, which was undergoing a political transformation. With the fallout from Watergate, Gingrich sought to re-invent the GOP and make a difference not only in the grassroots of the party, but from within the walls of power, which for him meant the US House of Representatives. Gritty and determined, Gingrich campaigned to win a seat, which he did in 1978’s mid-term elections, beginning a rabble-rousing career as soon as he was elected. Zelizer shows that Gingrich, even as a new congressman, did not sit quietly and sought attention wherever he could get it. The House was strongly in the Democrats’ hands, but Gingrich knew that his tenacity and cutthroat tactics could turn the tables, even if it took a while. Not always the friend of the Administration—though he strongly supported Reagan in 1980 —Gingrich continued his push to rebrand the House in a more conservative manner, mainly by targeting Democrats who violated some of the more basic rules. As the narrative progresses through some of the more controversial statements and sentiments by Gingrich, he seemed always to know when to speak and how to get the word out, even in times of Republican gaffes, particularly Reagan’s Iran Contra Affair. While the Democrats held onto power through the end of the Reagan Administration, a new Speaker of the House was chosen, one Jim Wright, who became the focus of Gingrich’s attention as he sought to pull apart the Democrats’ control of the House, brick by brick. Through a series of scandals, Gingrich laid the groundwork for the dismantling of Wright—a longtime and well-regarded political figure—in a highly embarrassing way. Gingrich may have set things in motion, but he need not get his hands dirty. Fighting to define himself within the House Republicans, Gingrich secured a key position of power in 1989 when he won the role of Minority Whip, with hopes of ascending from there. He would have to bide his time, but had finally tasted victory and continued to push things to the right, as the House teetered under Democratic leadership into the 1990s. In a flash final chapter, Zelizer describes Gingrich’s rise to power by toppling the Democrats’ control of the House, but also brought down the centre-right George H.W. Bush from winning re-election. His rise to the speakership was a flash in the book, as Gingrich found himself in a scandal all his own. However, his imprint lasted on the Republican Party in the House and helped create the Tea Party movement that emerged in the 2010 mid-term elections. Even though he fared poorly in his 2012 run for president and was not chosen as Trump’s running mate in 2016, Newt Gingrich is not a man soon to be forgotten. Recommended to those who love the inner workings of congressional politics, as well as the reader who loves to see how power and patience can topple any political Goliath.
I was pleasantly surprised with this book and the approach that Julian E. Zelizer took. While one might have expected a piece that pushed Newt Gingrich into the centre of the narrative and used the US political situation as a backdrop, Zelizer did the opposite. Gingrich is present throughout the narrative, but it is more his wheeling and dealing that proves to be a thread and the fallout from it. The narrative is rich with political goings-on in Congress throughout the 1980s and into the 90s, where Gingrich was present, but it was more about how the man could turn the story on its ear and the political machine worked itself out, inevitably to Gingrich’s desired outcomes. Zelizer does a masterful job in exploring the inner workings of the congressional struggles and how both major parties handled things, enriching his narrative with much detail and strong quotes. For the politically curious reader, this gave an almost behind-the-scenes look into how things transpired, as well as the fighting to hold onto power. I was too young to fully appreciate politics of any country in the 1980s and early 90s, but do remember Gingrich when he made it to the Speaker’s chair, so this was all new and highly educational as I learned of things that took place when I was only a lad. This book is not the Newt Gingrich dog and pony show, but highlights the man’s rise to power in reaction to much of what was going on within the House of Representatives and how Gingrich used this to redefine the narrative. With thorough chapters that cover many of the incidents and a keen bird’s eye view of how things progressed in the media and within congressional meeting rooms, the reader can see how power seemed almost to come to Gingrich, who used patience and perseverance to get what he wanted. I loved this approach and thoroughly enjoyed the historical narrative that kept Gingrich as part but not the central character throughout. This subtle approach made the book much more palatable, especially since I am by no means a fan of the right-wing of the GOP. Even mention and discussion about how the eventual Tea Party emerged had me interested and wanting to know more. If I had to offer a criticism, it would be that the final chapter sought to explore too much in too short a time. I am not sure if Zelizer ran out of steam, had an editor who offered a page limitation, or did not want to undertake the research, but Gingrich and his rise to the speakership through to his departure is all packed into a few pages. This does the book and the reader a disservice. Perhaps Zelizer is offering this as a teaser for a follow-up book, but this anti-climactic occurrence makes the premise (Gingrinch’s hunger for power) seem like a discussion that should be shelved. Why climb a mountain and not talk of the view? A man that Zelizer discussed as a potential running mate for Trump in 2016, Newt Gingrich certainly had a strong influence on the move to the right by Congress, though did so in such a way that it seemed almost necessary to rid the country of the nightmares the Democrats left during their long House control.
Kudos, Mr. Zelizer, for this fabulous book that taught me so very much. I loved it and hope to find more of your work in this vein, to educate me even more about the intricacies of the US political system.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
April 5, 2022
“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana
“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” William Faulkner, Requiem for a Nun
******
Julian Zelizer begins his fascinating study of Newt Gingrich with a prologue dating back to July 13, 2016, when the former Speaker of the House was seriously being considered by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to be his vice-presidential running mate.
Gingrich was Trump’s first choice, because Trump liked Gingrich’s style, and the feeling was mutual, which was not surprising, since without the impact of Gingrich on the history of American politics and governance there would never have been a successful Trump candidacy.
The political game plan utilized by Trump and his advisers had been formulated and executed by Gingrich in the 80s and 90s, before he got caught in his own trap and was forced to resign his speakership and his seat in the House of Representatives.
In 2016, Gingrich had nothing but praise for candidate Trump, and Trump who doted on praise, responded in a likewise manner. As a result, the country faced the possibility that the Republican party would elect two egotistical bomb-throwers, who would team up to tear up the government and replace it with their version.
Two bomb-throwers, who would embark on a scorched-earth policy, taking no prisoners, while holding the Republican party and the country as hostages; two leaders who played loose and free with the facts (possessors of ‘alternative facts’); who used name-calling, hyperbole, exaggeration, and lies as weapons to accomplish their goals.
To each, the end always justifies the means.
Would the party that once called itself “the party of family values” elect two candidates, each married to his third wife, and whose personal histories and conduct were way short of exemplary?
Fortunately, the voters didn’t have to make that decision. Cooler heads prevailed and were able to convince Trump that Mike Pence would be a safer – and better – choice. But the voters did make the decision to elect a presidential candidate whose personal life would have doomed earlier candidates to the dustbin of history.
Trump, as president, did not have Gingrich as a vice-president, but, in Zeliger’s words, he was able to thrive in the political world that Gingrich had created – and so do the would-be Trumps, politicians such as Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and the Tea Party members of Congress. A straight line can be drawn from Gingrich to Trump to Cruz and Hawley, and the other politicians who took lessons from both Gingrich and Trump.
Burning Down the House: Newt Gingrich, the Fall of a Speaker, and the Rise of the New Republican Party is not the first book, nor is Zelizer the first writer, to brand Gingrich as the seminal force that explains today’s dysfunctional political system, but it is also true that no earlier book or author did it as thoroughly or in such a well-written and engaging manner.
“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” William Faulkner, Requiem for a Nun
******
Julian Zelizer begins his fascinating study of Newt Gingrich with a prologue dating back to July 13, 2016, when the former Speaker of the House was seriously being considered by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to be his vice-presidential running mate.
Gingrich was Trump’s first choice, because Trump liked Gingrich’s style, and the feeling was mutual, which was not surprising, since without the impact of Gingrich on the history of American politics and governance there would never have been a successful Trump candidacy.
The political game plan utilized by Trump and his advisers had been formulated and executed by Gingrich in the 80s and 90s, before he got caught in his own trap and was forced to resign his speakership and his seat in the House of Representatives.
In 2016, Gingrich had nothing but praise for candidate Trump, and Trump who doted on praise, responded in a likewise manner. As a result, the country faced the possibility that the Republican party would elect two egotistical bomb-throwers, who would team up to tear up the government and replace it with their version.
Two bomb-throwers, who would embark on a scorched-earth policy, taking no prisoners, while holding the Republican party and the country as hostages; two leaders who played loose and free with the facts (possessors of ‘alternative facts’); who used name-calling, hyperbole, exaggeration, and lies as weapons to accomplish their goals.
To each, the end always justifies the means.
Would the party that once called itself “the party of family values” elect two candidates, each married to his third wife, and whose personal histories and conduct were way short of exemplary?
Fortunately, the voters didn’t have to make that decision. Cooler heads prevailed and were able to convince Trump that Mike Pence would be a safer – and better – choice. But the voters did make the decision to elect a presidential candidate whose personal life would have doomed earlier candidates to the dustbin of history.
Trump, as president, did not have Gingrich as a vice-president, but, in Zeliger’s words, he was able to thrive in the political world that Gingrich had created – and so do the would-be Trumps, politicians such as Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and the Tea Party members of Congress. A straight line can be drawn from Gingrich to Trump to Cruz and Hawley, and the other politicians who took lessons from both Gingrich and Trump.
Burning Down the House: Newt Gingrich, the Fall of a Speaker, and the Rise of the New Republican Party is not the first book, nor is Zelizer the first writer, to brand Gingrich as the seminal force that explains today’s dysfunctional political system, but it is also true that no earlier book or author did it as thoroughly or in such a well-written and engaging manner.
November 30, 2024
”Once politicians lowered the bar as to what kind of actions were permissible in the political arena, it was virtually impossible to restore conditions to where they had been.”
”The Speaker’s defeat was an unprecedented moment in Congressional history, and inspired a new confidence in Gingrich’s style of tactical warfare. Simply put, his tactics worked.”
Author Julian Zelizer boldly displays the thesis of his book in its prologue. Recounting the meeting between Gingrich and Donald Trump in 2016, where Trump was interviewing Newt as a possible running mate on his ticket, Zelizer explicitly draws the connection between the two as norm obliterating “pirates” willing to shamelessly venture anything in quest for victory. And he clearly marks Gingrich as the trailblazer that made Trump possible, if not inevitable, stating:
”Gingrich had planted. Trump had reaped.”
Zelizer then launches into the story of how Gingrich invented the type of hyper partisan, no holds barred style of political warfare that is now the American norm with his campaign to bring down the Democratic Speaker of the House, Jim Wright in the late 1980s. He stresses the pure audacity of how Gingrich, then a backbench bomb thrower, good for a quote or sound bite but practically devoid of legislative accomplishments, took on Wright, the most powerful man in the House, third in line for the presidency, and won, forcing him from his position and eventually from Congress. That he was able to do this only by breaking all of the norms of Congress, making even his Republican allies uncomfortable as he played unfairly and dirty, bothered Gingrich not at all. And despite how uncomfortable Gingrich made them, as the rest of the Republicans saw the success he brought, they came to support him and cheer him on. The process of the battle to take down Wright changed the House and Washington forever.
Gingrich succeeded by weaponizing the Congressional ethics rules that had been created in the wake of the Watergate scandal in ways that the Democrats had never anticipated. By expertly focusing old newspaper stories and innuendo, Gingrich was able to play the press to create a scandal that took down a powerful leader with nearly no evidence of any serious wrongdoing. Gingrich boldly dismissed the fact that he was guilty of nearly the same offenses, while painting the entire Democratic Party as hopelessly corrupt. And because he was using unprecedented tactics that ignored all of the House’s longstanding gentleman’s agreements, Wright and the Democrats were completely blindsided.
”Wright didn’t understand that the debate over ethics was asymmetric. The purification that Gingrich was demanding from Democrats was almost entirely one sided. Gingrich, who was under an ethics cloud of his own, one eerily similar to the charges he had leveled against the Speaker, had no intention of demanding the same strict standards from his own allies. The campaign against Speaker Wright was all about politics, not good government.”
Zelizer is a great storyteller, and manages to make this old battle from three and a half decades ago an absolute page-turner. And I believe he correctly identifies this nasty political battle as the crucial turning point that fatally poisoned the American political system and elevated battling for partisan power over responsible governing, leading directly to the ugly and embarrassing politics of our present.
”The Speaker’s defeat was an unprecedented moment in Congressional history, and inspired a new confidence in Gingrich’s style of tactical warfare. Simply put, his tactics worked.”
Author Julian Zelizer boldly displays the thesis of his book in its prologue. Recounting the meeting between Gingrich and Donald Trump in 2016, where Trump was interviewing Newt as a possible running mate on his ticket, Zelizer explicitly draws the connection between the two as norm obliterating “pirates” willing to shamelessly venture anything in quest for victory. And he clearly marks Gingrich as the trailblazer that made Trump possible, if not inevitable, stating:
”Gingrich had planted. Trump had reaped.”
Zelizer then launches into the story of how Gingrich invented the type of hyper partisan, no holds barred style of political warfare that is now the American norm with his campaign to bring down the Democratic Speaker of the House, Jim Wright in the late 1980s. He stresses the pure audacity of how Gingrich, then a backbench bomb thrower, good for a quote or sound bite but practically devoid of legislative accomplishments, took on Wright, the most powerful man in the House, third in line for the presidency, and won, forcing him from his position and eventually from Congress. That he was able to do this only by breaking all of the norms of Congress, making even his Republican allies uncomfortable as he played unfairly and dirty, bothered Gingrich not at all. And despite how uncomfortable Gingrich made them, as the rest of the Republicans saw the success he brought, they came to support him and cheer him on. The process of the battle to take down Wright changed the House and Washington forever.
Gingrich succeeded by weaponizing the Congressional ethics rules that had been created in the wake of the Watergate scandal in ways that the Democrats had never anticipated. By expertly focusing old newspaper stories and innuendo, Gingrich was able to play the press to create a scandal that took down a powerful leader with nearly no evidence of any serious wrongdoing. Gingrich boldly dismissed the fact that he was guilty of nearly the same offenses, while painting the entire Democratic Party as hopelessly corrupt. And because he was using unprecedented tactics that ignored all of the House’s longstanding gentleman’s agreements, Wright and the Democrats were completely blindsided.
”Wright didn’t understand that the debate over ethics was asymmetric. The purification that Gingrich was demanding from Democrats was almost entirely one sided. Gingrich, who was under an ethics cloud of his own, one eerily similar to the charges he had leveled against the Speaker, had no intention of demanding the same strict standards from his own allies. The campaign against Speaker Wright was all about politics, not good government.”
Zelizer is a great storyteller, and manages to make this old battle from three and a half decades ago an absolute page-turner. And I believe he correctly identifies this nasty political battle as the crucial turning point that fatally poisoned the American political system and elevated battling for partisan power over responsible governing, leading directly to the ugly and embarrassing politics of our present.
July 5, 2020
As an Independent voter, I am drawn to political books like a moth to a flame, yet I approach each with trepidation, no matter the side of the aisle where they originate. Nowadays, there is so much division in politics and it is difficult to find books that truly ride the center of the issues. This is also true about “Burning Down the House,” by Julian E. Zelizer.
Not that I didn’t have hopes that this book might rise above the rest. Apart from a few comments here and there early on, the author pointed out errors and misdeeds by both major parties. The book’s title revolves around the author’s premise, that Newt Gingrich used the rules of the House of Representatives to bring down its Speaker, Jim Wright. This was a period of history that I wasn’t applying the same amount of focus that I use nowadays, and I desired to learn more about the event and the main players. Primarily, I wanted to learn what Jim Wright was accused of doing, what Gingrich did to propel the accusations, and whether or not I thought the Speaker had committed the acts in question.
The book begins with much information about Gingrich, though midway it switches gears and Wright takes the major role while Gingrich is shunted aside and almost takes the role of a minor character. The story moves into a presentation of Wright’s life, and to the author’s credit, the accusations seem to be true. Another damning piece of the story is Wright choosing to resign, even though the author insists that the Ethics Commission had not presented any solid evidence. For the Speaker and his party, there was enough of a smoking gun to force him to resign.
Mr. Zelizer concentrates on Congressman Gingrich, insisting that using the very rules of propriety that the House Democrats had helped to construct was improper. It would be silly for anyone to argue that rules are not stretched and broken by members of both parties, and that the guilty parties should be held accountable (another argument for term limits, effectively removing those who serve before they become too comfortable). The partisan elements become more and more apparent, right down to calling Congressman Gingrich’s assistant, Karen Van Brocklin, “…Gingrich’s attack dog.”
The end of the book ties Mr. Zelizer’s opinions together, painting a picture of Congressman Gingrich’s use of the rules as the beginning of the deep partisanship that was helped along by other Republican’s along the way. Meanwhile, Democrats sat idly by and commiserated on the state of affairs (which completely ignores the addition of the community organizing factor that became part of the mix during the Obama years). The point is that both parties have ratcheted up this partisan fury that has now invaded the hearts and minds of Americans. This book does nothing to positively aid the efforts to chain the partisanship and return some sense of civility to our government. I would bet that many reviews will reflect the same mood as each takes a side. For me, I am not happy with either party nor with another book that preaches divisiveness, and thus place my star rating in the middle. Three stars bumped to three-and-a-half for allowing the improprieties of both parties to be presented.
My thanks to NetGalley and PENGUIN GROUP The Penguin Press for a complimentary electronic copy of this book.
Not that I didn’t have hopes that this book might rise above the rest. Apart from a few comments here and there early on, the author pointed out errors and misdeeds by both major parties. The book’s title revolves around the author’s premise, that Newt Gingrich used the rules of the House of Representatives to bring down its Speaker, Jim Wright. This was a period of history that I wasn’t applying the same amount of focus that I use nowadays, and I desired to learn more about the event and the main players. Primarily, I wanted to learn what Jim Wright was accused of doing, what Gingrich did to propel the accusations, and whether or not I thought the Speaker had committed the acts in question.
The book begins with much information about Gingrich, though midway it switches gears and Wright takes the major role while Gingrich is shunted aside and almost takes the role of a minor character. The story moves into a presentation of Wright’s life, and to the author’s credit, the accusations seem to be true. Another damning piece of the story is Wright choosing to resign, even though the author insists that the Ethics Commission had not presented any solid evidence. For the Speaker and his party, there was enough of a smoking gun to force him to resign.
Mr. Zelizer concentrates on Congressman Gingrich, insisting that using the very rules of propriety that the House Democrats had helped to construct was improper. It would be silly for anyone to argue that rules are not stretched and broken by members of both parties, and that the guilty parties should be held accountable (another argument for term limits, effectively removing those who serve before they become too comfortable). The partisan elements become more and more apparent, right down to calling Congressman Gingrich’s assistant, Karen Van Brocklin, “…Gingrich’s attack dog.”
The end of the book ties Mr. Zelizer’s opinions together, painting a picture of Congressman Gingrich’s use of the rules as the beginning of the deep partisanship that was helped along by other Republican’s along the way. Meanwhile, Democrats sat idly by and commiserated on the state of affairs (which completely ignores the addition of the community organizing factor that became part of the mix during the Obama years). The point is that both parties have ratcheted up this partisan fury that has now invaded the hearts and minds of Americans. This book does nothing to positively aid the efforts to chain the partisanship and return some sense of civility to our government. I would bet that many reviews will reflect the same mood as each takes a side. For me, I am not happy with either party nor with another book that preaches divisiveness, and thus place my star rating in the middle. Three stars bumped to three-and-a-half for allowing the improprieties of both parties to be presented.
My thanks to NetGalley and PENGUIN GROUP The Penguin Press for a complimentary electronic copy of this book.
May 8, 2020
Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, provides an in-depth analysis of Newt Gingrich's rise to power within the Republican Party. Zelizer pays particular attention to the new political strategy that Gingrich introduced in the House of Representatives and its long-term consequences for American politics. He argues that "the unlikely, unorthodox, nativist populist campaign Trump had mounted, which aimed to tear down political leaders of both parties and to destabilize the entire U.S. political system, was Gingrich's creation." Gingrich advanced this strategy in the 1980s and 1990s in an effort to reclaim a political majority in the House of Representatives. As part of his no-holds-barred approach to acquiring a Republican majority, he took down first Democratic party congressman Charlie Diggs and later the Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Wright. To do so, he took advantage of new congressional ethics rules that had been put in place following the Watergate Scandal and played on the post-Watergate, post-Vietnam public distrust of government offices.
However, Zelizer does not place the blame on Gingrich alone, or even on a Republican party that abandoned comity and bi-partisanship in pursuit of power. Specifically, he cites the Democrats' willingness to throw Wright under the proverbial bus for political expediency.. At the point that Wright was forced to resign, he had not been found guilty of any infraction. Moreover, Wright lacked the political skills to survive "in an increasingly brutal, polarized world where the parties grew further and further apart with each passing day. He also describes the limitations of the finance and ethics reforms enacted in the 1970s under a Democratic Party majority as a contributing factor. By not enacting reforms that removed the pervasive influence of private money on Capitol Hill, the Democrats, as the majority, made themselves vulnerable to charges of corruption.
Although Newt Gingrich would eventually be brought down as Speaker of the House by the very tactics that he had championed, those tactics did not die with his downfall. In 2012, Gingrich would run for the Republican presidential nomination. Among the policies that he championed was an expanded border wall between the United States and Mexico. He also defended Trump's claim that Obama was not an American citizen. Although Gingrich' lost in 2012, Trump would win the presidential election with the exact same approach four-years later.
The author's research is meticulous, and the writing-style is highly engaging. Although primarily targeted at an academic audience, armchair political buffs should also enjoy this balanced study of the changing dynamics of American politics. Still there were a few places where I would like to have seen the author expand his analysis. For example, he mentions that in his 2012 presidential bid, Gingirch's "moneymaking ventures as a consultant and businessman -- more than $100 million earned in his first decade after being speaker -- became problematic for someone who wanted to be seen as a man of the people." However, he offers no explanation as to why just four years later, this same issue would not be a problem for Donald Trump. There were also a few places where I thought less detail was needed. For example, he provides extensive background on Wright's political rise to power -- much of which this reader did not feel was necessary and interrupted the flow of what was otherwise a well-aced narrative. But these criticism are minor and this book is well worth reading by anyone interested in the divisive politics that define the United States today.
However, Zelizer does not place the blame on Gingrich alone, or even on a Republican party that abandoned comity and bi-partisanship in pursuit of power. Specifically, he cites the Democrats' willingness to throw Wright under the proverbial bus for political expediency.. At the point that Wright was forced to resign, he had not been found guilty of any infraction. Moreover, Wright lacked the political skills to survive "in an increasingly brutal, polarized world where the parties grew further and further apart with each passing day. He also describes the limitations of the finance and ethics reforms enacted in the 1970s under a Democratic Party majority as a contributing factor. By not enacting reforms that removed the pervasive influence of private money on Capitol Hill, the Democrats, as the majority, made themselves vulnerable to charges of corruption.
Although Newt Gingrich would eventually be brought down as Speaker of the House by the very tactics that he had championed, those tactics did not die with his downfall. In 2012, Gingrich would run for the Republican presidential nomination. Among the policies that he championed was an expanded border wall between the United States and Mexico. He also defended Trump's claim that Obama was not an American citizen. Although Gingrich' lost in 2012, Trump would win the presidential election with the exact same approach four-years later.
The author's research is meticulous, and the writing-style is highly engaging. Although primarily targeted at an academic audience, armchair political buffs should also enjoy this balanced study of the changing dynamics of American politics. Still there were a few places where I would like to have seen the author expand his analysis. For example, he mentions that in his 2012 presidential bid, Gingirch's "moneymaking ventures as a consultant and businessman -- more than $100 million earned in his first decade after being speaker -- became problematic for someone who wanted to be seen as a man of the people." However, he offers no explanation as to why just four years later, this same issue would not be a problem for Donald Trump. There were also a few places where I thought less detail was needed. For example, he provides extensive background on Wright's political rise to power -- much of which this reader did not feel was necessary and interrupted the flow of what was otherwise a well-aced narrative. But these criticism are minor and this book is well worth reading by anyone interested in the divisive politics that define the United States today.
May 29, 2020
Interesting chronicle of how Newt Gingrich studied the Congressional (then-in-power) Democratic playbook, weaponized it, expanded it, and then turned it loose. The result being the downfall of the then powerful Democratic speaker of the house, Jim Wright. And the rise of the Gingrich revolution. Obstruct, delay, demonize, and downright lie, all in the name of remaining in power. As the book points out, to Gingrich, morals are for the other guy. Gingrich laid the foundation that Trump has capitalized on, expanding the demonization to unbelievable levels. I believe that, in the future, history will not treat Gingrich well. He will go into the ranks of scoundrels like McCarthy and Wallace.
October 3, 2020
Newt Gingrich was the general. Rush handled the propaganda. And this book gives you the front row seat to witness how a generation of Republicans were ruined by total warfare politics. And that’s how we got Trump.
Thanks butt-face.
Thanks butt-face.
May 10, 2020
I have maintained for more than 25 years that Reagan started the modern partisan divide and Gingrich codified it (and as more fallout from that came, I've added that Rove and Ailes perfected it; and T benefited). So when this came across my email feed last year through NetGalley, I requested a review copy. But, the request was sadly to me, declined, so I put it on my To Read list. I got a surprising email near the end of April offering it to me (from the publisher Penguin Group, again through NetGalley), so off the To Read and immediately on to Currently Reading! (And obviously, now Read.)
This is an in-depth look at where it began and how Gingrich machiavellied it. One might say "engineered", but I am an engineer and that's insulting, so I coined a new word. And the book is largely focused on the subject of the subtitle - taking down Speaker Jim Wright. Gingrich hardly is mentioned in more than half of the book, as Zelizer relates the complexities of the times and the histories of the event. He gives the well-researched background histories of the players in the grand game, Gingrich and Wright, obviously, but also the others who facilitated the coup or were victims of it. And from my armchair, we are all victims. Zelizer hits it in his Prologue
Zelizer sums it well:
Note on my notes: My ADE e-reader allows me to highlight and make notes, but not copy quotes, so I'm going to have to be economical with which ones I'll include here because I have to type the quotes by hand and I have more books to read!
Selected observations:
In 1976,
On the censure of Congressman Charles Diggs in 1979, a staffer for the NRCC noted
Some of that background history
Crystal ball:
In 1982, Gingrich wrote to his "fellow Republicans" of the need to develop a coordinated message.
Gingrich though bipartisanship was a political trap that only benefited Democrats. Thinking on that, I can't argue.
On muckraker Jack Anderson, who wrote an attack column on Wright titled "SHOOTING AT FISH IN THE PORK BARREL"
On a procedural power play that Wright maneuvered for a vote on a deficit reduction bill, there were many temper tantrums by the Rs, and
On congressional accountability,
In 1988, Michael Dukakis got a lot of mileage from (the at-the-time the worst presidency ever, my opinion):
Then there were The Words...
In his penultimate chapter titled "Gingrich on Top", Zelizer finally called the wrongwing for what they are: "Gingrich and his ilk had been emboldened." In his Wright's response in his step-down speech, Wright urged both parties to 'bring this period of mindless cannibalism to an end!'" Thirty one years later, I still do not think we will see that in my lifetime. Zelizer notes "Once politicians lowered the bar as to what kinds of actions were permissible in the political arena, it was virtually impossible to restore conditions to where they had been."
And we come to the codification of the lowered bar...
In the next to last paragraph of his concluding chapter "Mindless Cannibalism", Zelizer quotes President Obama...
The fires Gingrich started still burn. If his part-time belief in a hell has any truth, his ticket was punched long ago.
This is an in-depth look at where it began and how Gingrich machiavellied it. One might say "engineered", but I am an engineer and that's insulting, so I coined a new word. And the book is largely focused on the subject of the subtitle - taking down Speaker Jim Wright. Gingrich hardly is mentioned in more than half of the book, as Zelizer relates the complexities of the times and the histories of the event. He gives the well-researched background histories of the players in the grand game, Gingrich and Wright, obviously, but also the others who facilitated the coup or were victims of it. And from my armchair, we are all victims. Zelizer hits it in his Prologue
...the unlikely, unorthodox, nativist populist campaign trump had mounted, which aimed to tear down the political leaders of both parties and to destabilize the entire U.S. political system, was Gingrich's creation.Zelizer notes that Gingrich recognized that politics in the modern media was "as much about perception as substance" (I'll submit less about substance,or actual substance, anyway). He says "The way journalists framed a story and the narratives they crafted about an issue could be as powerful as the facts." I long for the time when good journalism was about facts. That word doesn't mean what it used to mean.
Zelizer sums it well:
The new GOP goal was not to negotiate or legislate but to do everything necessary to maintain partisan power. If it was politically useful to engage in behavior that could destroy the possibility of governance, which rendered bipartisanship impossible and would unfairly decimate their opponents' reputation, the so be it.They've been obstructing, destroying, and doing that anything to maintain power since. No legislation, no governing. And Gingrich played a huge role in creating the unculture to which we are subjected. Zelizer says what I've been saying since T broke through: "Gingrich planted; Trump reaped." And his theme: "We can date precisely the moment when our toxic political environment was born: Speaker Wright's downfall in 1989."
Note on my notes: My ADE e-reader allows me to highlight and make notes, but not copy quotes, so I'm going to have to be economical with which ones I'll include here because I have to type the quotes by hand and I have more books to read!
Selected observations:
In 1976,
"Our legislative system," Gingrich insisted with his attention turned toward Capitol Hill, "has become morally, intellectually, and spiritually corrupt."Like evangelicals and too many of his party, to Gingrich, morals were what other people needed.
On the censure of Congressman Charles Diggs in 1979, a staffer for the NRCC noted
An A.P. reporter who covered Newt and another freshman in 1979 told him last week that there are about six Representatives whose phone numbers reporters know by heart, and Newt's was one of them - because they thought Newt understood what was happening and would play it straight with the press.Straight...really? Oh how that was both so wrong and portentous.
Some of that background history
Reagan's election had only been possible after fifteen years of a brewing political backlash toward the Democratic embrace of civil rights in 1964 and 1965 - as President Johnson had famously predicted - finally allowed the GOP to start dominating the South.Zelizer nails it again here.
Crystal ball:
It all came down to this: for republicans to dislodge House Democrats from power, they would have to be ruthless. Democrats didn't play fair, Gingrich believed. He said that incumbents rigged elections through gerrymandering and campaign money; they relied on arcane procedures, such as imposing rules that prevented floor amendments to bills, that disempowered the minority party; and they solidified their public support through corrupt pork-barrel spending and favors for business leaders in their districts.Wow. Fast forward 15 and 30 years. Who's been gerrymandering and reaping the campaign money?
In 1982, Gingrich wrote to his "fellow Republicans" of the need to develop a coordinated message.
After reviewing twelve Sunday television interview shows, Gingrich came away impressed by how much attention congressional Democrats devoted to perfecting and repeating their message. Republicans were far less polished, Gingrich thought. "A political party which focuses on the management and allocation of campaign resources, and neglects political strategy, is a party that loses, "Gingrich warned. "Two minutes on the evening news is watched by more people, believed by more people, and, politically has a greater multiplier effect than paid political advertising."Fast forward again...D messages are not polished, not consistent; Rs on the other hand... Of course it helps to have your own Pravda...
Gingrich though bipartisanship was a political trap that only benefited Democrats. Thinking on that, I can't argue.
On muckraker Jack Anderson, who wrote an attack column on Wright titled "SHOOTING AT FISH IN THE PORK BARREL"
Wright resented the piece, which he insisted was based on a fabricated account of the conversation [of a Public Works Committee secret session]. "The Anderson treatment," Wright noted to himself, "is so typical of the growing irresponsibility of sensational 'expose' type journalism that increasingly appalls, angers and even frightens a lot of conscientious public officials."What was to become the blueprint for Fox.
On a procedural power play that Wright maneuvered for a vote on a deficit reduction bill, there were many temper tantrums by the Rs, and
Dick Cheney growled to the National Journal that the Speaker had proven he was a "heavy-handed son of a bitch"Pot, meet kettle. Kettle,,,pot. Really?
On congressional accountability,
Without these reformers [reform-oriented institutions], Gingrich looked as if he were orchestrating a shabby partisan coup. They would offer reluctant Republicans the cover they needed to get behind him. This would be his masterstroke, and it would capitalize on the Democrats' shortsightedness.I've observed that shortsightedness for more than 30 years... On the flipside of today, George Mair, former reporter and Wright's chief press officer in late 1987, attacked journalists and editors of U.S. News & World Report, The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Los Angeles Times for their slander, innuendo, poor research, flat-out incorrectness, ...
Directly attacking the press was a dangerous strategy. They had a big platform from which to respond. And they did. The editors of these powerful publications were not going to sit quietly by as Mair delivered these reprimands and smeared the reputations of their top journalists. So, the editors exposed Mair's campaign by speaking to reporters. The story looked to many Americans like an effort to intimidate and harass honest journalists investigating potential corruption.Well, damn... like some procedural reforms that backfired on them, they set the stage up for the other guys. T and ilk lowered the bar to the mind-numbing nadir it is today (I recommend Jim Acosta's book, The Enemy of the People: A Dangerous Time to Tell the Truth in America.)
In 1988, Michael Dukakis got a lot of mileage from (the at-the-time the worst presidency ever, my opinion):
The opinion that Reagan had run the "most corrupt administration" in American history was prevalent in Democratic circles.Surpassed as another #1 by the 2017 administration, likely to never be broken. Another way the Ds started something that the Rs perfected:
The House Ethics Committee had earned a bad reputation since its creation in 1967. The solution for previous chairmen of this panel, like John Flynt, had been to do nothing when a complaint was made. With Democrats in perpetual control of the House, Republicans saw the committee as one more example of how the opposition abused their power to protect its own members, regardless of the sordid behavior that ethics investigations turned up.Like I said, the Rs became masters of this. Another stage-setter, on the promotion of Gingrich's book, Window of Opportunity,
The COS [Conservative Opportunity Society] Limited Partnership, as Gingrich called it, raised $105,000 in 1984. Each partner contributed $5,000 to the fund. The goal, Gingrich genially acknowledged to a reporter, was a half-baked plan to "force a best-seller", which would of course enhance Gingrich's public standing.Hardly a blink when Jr. did it 34 years later.
Then there were The Words...
Still, legislation remained a secondary concern for Gingrich, who spent most of his first month as minority whip selling his message to reporters. He tested out catchphrases such as the "looney left" to describe Democrats to the press. One of his favorite terms was "institutional corruption,"...Where Gingrich crafted the narrative, T lowered it to a juvenile level. Journalists suffer greatly now. And as to journalism, the unwitting complicity...
Good government organizations and mainstream reporters, not always thinking about how they might be playing into a concerted partisan attack, had moved the investigation [of Wright] forward on their own terms, finding time after time smoke that looked like fire.As they did in the election of 2000 and since...And on the ethics hearing,
What bothered Democrats most was that Wright's team did not seem to understand the most fundamental point: a technical defense would not work in such a highly politicized environment.Neither would it work in the impeachment of 2020.
In his penultimate chapter titled "Gingrich on Top", Zelizer finally called the wrongwing for what they are: "Gingrich and his ilk had been emboldened." In his Wright's response in his step-down speech, Wright urged both parties to 'bring this period of mindless cannibalism to an end!'" Thirty one years later, I still do not think we will see that in my lifetime. Zelizer notes "Once politicians lowered the bar as to what kinds of actions were permissible in the political arena, it was virtually impossible to restore conditions to where they had been."
And we come to the codification of the lowered bar...
The gospel of Gingrich kept spreading. He literally shared his rhetorical style through a GOPAC pamphlet first distributed in 1990, titled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control," which he crafted with the pollster Frank Luntz, that offered a road map to replicate his way with words. Responding to Republican candidates who, GOPAC said, had told them, "I wish I could speak like newt," the memo recommended using certain words repeatedly like "corruption," "traitors," "sick," "radical," "shame," "pathetic," "steal," and "lie" to describe the Democrats.This has continued to this day, only getting worse. Gingrich found himself a victim, reaping what he sowed when he was the first Speaker in history to be punished for ethics violations.
In the next to last paragraph of his concluding chapter "Mindless Cannibalism", Zelizer quotes President Obama...
We've seen this coming. Donald Trump is not an outlier; he is a culmination, a logical conclusion of the rhetoric and tactics of the Republican Party for the past ten, fifteen, twenty years. What surprised me was the degree to which those tactics and rhetoric completely jumped the rails. There were no governing principles, there was no one to say, 'No, this is going too far, this isn't what we stand for.' But we've seen it for eight years, even with the reasonable people like John Boehner, who, when push came to shove, wouldn't push back against these currents.Spot on, Mr. President.
The fires Gingrich started still burn. If his part-time belief in a hell has any truth, his ticket was punched long ago.
July 26, 2021
Check your sanity at the door to this book. It won't help you much while you're inside, but you will embrace it like it's your best friend when you come back out.
This is a genuine horror story. There isn't any actual gore. (Well, in one instance there is. There's a peripheral attempted murder that figures significantly; 'miracle' seems insufficient in describing how the victim manages to survive.) There are no zombies. (~although there are quite a few beings who act not unlike pod people.) There are no ghosts. (~though there is the ghost activity of copycat behavior.) Paranormal-to-laymen events of mental cruelty are unleashed but the actual cavalcade of monsters is slow in coming.
This is post-Watergate Washington politics - when the atmosphere after Nixon was supposed to be different. When policies had been put in place to make them different; to restore the trust of the American people. That didn't last long. Because a new rabble-rouser came to town. There was a wolf at the door.
That was Newt Gingrich - who gave new meaning to 'Party Crasher'.
This is not a biography of Gingrich but he's given a sufficient overview bio. Instead, it's a detailed account of Gingrich's main political goal. As historian Zelizer tells us early on:
Gingrich entered Congress in 1978. Although, upon entry, he was able to cause an initial stir by taking down a different Democrat, that was training-wheel stuff compared to his larger plan. The Democrats had controlled Congress for decades, leaving the Republicans in restless (and resentful) submission. In Gingrich's mind that had to change. The Republicans had to be restored to power, even if he accomplished that himself. To do so, he had to take down Democrat House speaker Jim Wright. It took him 10+ years (mainly because Republicans themselves tended to not like him) but - aided and abetted by journalists hungry to be the next Woodward-Bernstein, the advent of talk radio, and the rise of political news stations like C-SPAN - he did it.
Amoral by nature, Gingrich's modus operandi was confusing. Sometimes his attacks would be for what seemed a good cause, sometimes not; he took on whatever would lead to what he wanted. Being sociopathic as well, how he reached his goals was irrelevant. He's described as a "pit bull" but his demeanor is more like that of a chihuahua. He didn't exactly bite but, in a McCarthy-like manner (repeating accusations of "Corruption!"), he never stopped his high-decibel yapping.
With the book's focus on Gingrich and Wright, Zelizer unveils two complex characters. Gingrich's personality is easier to grasp since it's relatively transparent. Wright, however, comes off as more shadowy. Though technically the 'innocent' party (he was never officially charged
with wrongdoing and resigned before that could happen) and although his attempts at candor (specifically in his jaw-dropping resignation speech) are apparent, Wright doesn't come off as completely forthright. There's the suggestion that such an attitude fell in line with a certain complacency the long-in-power Democrats fell victim to, being too surface-polite to deal with their own Party's tendency to push the limits of Congressional rules.
Zelizer is not shy about placing blame at the feet of the Democrats:
Reading books like 'Dark Money', 'Democracy in Chains', 'Kochland', etc. is crucial in understanding the domino theory of Gingrich's agenda. But they still represent the end of the line of bread crumbs. Tracing that line back leads us to 'Bringing Down the House', which forcefully illustrates the blueprint that eventually brought us DJT.
This is a genuine horror story. There isn't any actual gore. (Well, in one instance there is. There's a peripheral attempted murder that figures significantly; 'miracle' seems insufficient in describing how the victim manages to survive.) There are no zombies. (~although there are quite a few beings who act not unlike pod people.) There are no ghosts. (~though there is the ghost activity of copycat behavior.) Paranormal-to-laymen events of mental cruelty are unleashed but the actual cavalcade of monsters is slow in coming.
This is post-Watergate Washington politics - when the atmosphere after Nixon was supposed to be different. When policies had been put in place to make them different; to restore the trust of the American people. That didn't last long. Because a new rabble-rouser came to town. There was a wolf at the door.
That was Newt Gingrich - who gave new meaning to 'Party Crasher'.
This is not a biography of Gingrich but he's given a sufficient overview bio. Instead, it's a detailed account of Gingrich's main political goal. As historian Zelizer tells us early on:
We can date precisely the moment our toxic political environment was born: Speaker Wright's downfall in 1989.
Gingrich entered Congress in 1978. Although, upon entry, he was able to cause an initial stir by taking down a different Democrat, that was training-wheel stuff compared to his larger plan. The Democrats had controlled Congress for decades, leaving the Republicans in restless (and resentful) submission. In Gingrich's mind that had to change. The Republicans had to be restored to power, even if he accomplished that himself. To do so, he had to take down Democrat House speaker Jim Wright. It took him 10+ years (mainly because Republicans themselves tended to not like him) but - aided and abetted by journalists hungry to be the next Woodward-Bernstein, the advent of talk radio, and the rise of political news stations like C-SPAN - he did it.
Amoral by nature, Gingrich's modus operandi was confusing. Sometimes his attacks would be for what seemed a good cause, sometimes not; he took on whatever would lead to what he wanted. Being sociopathic as well, how he reached his goals was irrelevant. He's described as a "pit bull" but his demeanor is more like that of a chihuahua. He didn't exactly bite but, in a McCarthy-like manner (repeating accusations of "Corruption!"), he never stopped his high-decibel yapping.
With the book's focus on Gingrich and Wright, Zelizer unveils two complex characters. Gingrich's personality is easier to grasp since it's relatively transparent. Wright, however, comes off as more shadowy. Though technically the 'innocent' party (he was never officially charged
with wrongdoing and resigned before that could happen) and although his attempts at candor (specifically in his jaw-dropping resignation speech) are apparent, Wright doesn't come off as completely forthright. There's the suggestion that such an attitude fell in line with a certain complacency the long-in-power Democrats fell victim to, being too surface-polite to deal with their own Party's tendency to push the limits of Congressional rules.
Zelizer is not shy about placing blame at the feet of the Democrats:
Wright was not the only Democrat to blame. He was just one part of a generation of Democrats in the 1970s who had done too little to fix the nexus between money and politics when a rare window of opportunity for reform had opened in the aftermath of Watergate.But what is not exactly underscored is the responsibility of the American public. After all, people like Gingrich don't just magically appear in the Senate; barring tampering, they're voted in.
Reading books like 'Dark Money', 'Democracy in Chains', 'Kochland', etc. is crucial in understanding the domino theory of Gingrich's agenda. But they still represent the end of the line of bread crumbs. Tracing that line back leads us to 'Bringing Down the House', which forcefully illustrates the blueprint that eventually brought us DJT.
March 7, 2021
Having been a House staff member during the time described by Zelizer I found his depiction accurate and useful to understanding Gingrich's skillful rise to power.
February 8, 2021
Tammikuussa kiinnosti jostain syystä nämä jenkkipoliitikkojen elämänkerrat ja muut heidän politiikkaansa sivuavat teokset.
Gingrich nousi maineeseen 1980-luvulla ja huipulle 1990-luvulla. Hänestä tuli edustajainhuoneen puhemies 1995, ensimmäinen republikaani paikalla 40 vuoteen. Hän oli myös kirjan mukaan mies puolueen muuttamisessa puolueeksi, jolle tärkeimmäksi tuli voittaa vaalit ja päästä valtaan, välittämättä keinoista. No, hän tosiaan laati strategian, jolla demokraattien valta murrettiin, joten edeltävän voi tulkita negatiivisesti tai positiivisesti.
Gingrichin politiikassa ja vallantavoittelussa hyödynnettiin edustajainhuoneen uusia vaatimuksia läpinäkyvyydestä ja korruption kitkemisestä. Nämä Watergaten jälkeen esiin nousseet vaatimukset ja säännöt hyödyntämällä Gingrich pystyi kurmoottamaan demokraatteja kaksinaismoralismista ja ihan selvistä väärinkäytöksistä (joihin myös republikaanien puolue ja Newt itsekin syyllistyivät toki). Hyödyntämällä taidokkaasti mediaa, joka oli saanut uuden roolin 24/7 uutiskanavien ja CSPANin ansiosta hän huipensi kamppailunsa saamalla edustajainhuoneen puhemiehen Wrightin eroamaan.
Gingrich ei kirjan mukaan hakenut valtaa ideologialla vaan pelaamalla kovaa ja henkilökohtaisesti. Valta oli hänelle tavoite ylitse muiden. Mikä toki ymmärrettävää, kun hänen puolueensa ei valtaa ollut täysin saanut vuosikymmeniin. Ikuinen joustaminen ja demokraattien jarrutus tärkeäksi katsottuun reaganilaiseen muutokseen söi varmasti miestä.
Näin Gingrich hyökkäsi lujaa, harasi kaikessa vastaan, käytti kaikkea mitä pystyi käyttämään valtakamppailussa. Tärkeintä oli nuijia toista väsymättömästi ja omaa viestiä oli toistettavat kyllästymiseen asti. Totuudesta saattoi vähän tinkiä, toistosta ei.
Demokraatit olivat myös tottuneet toimimaan, erityisesti edustajainhuoneessa, tietyllä tavalla, joka ei aina ollut kovinkaan tasapuolista tai KOMPROMISSIhalukasta.
Tilaisuus, motiivi ja keinot. Niillä Gingrich saavutti tavoitteensa. Ja kirjoittajien mukaan samalla muutti republikaanit toiseksi puolueeksi. Ja politiikan toimintatavat. Heille Trumpin ja muiden henkilökohtainen rummutus ovat vain jatkumoa tästä. He jopa esittivät kirjaa käsitelleessä podcastissa selityksen, mikä erottaa dem ja rep toimintaa: demokraateille valtio on tärkein ja sen toimintaa tulee suojella, vaikka itselle epämieluisilla KOMPROMISSEILLA. Republikaaneille puolestaan markkinat ja yksilö ovat kaikkein tärkein, niiden tieltä joutaa valtio kärsimäänkin, koska se on alisteinen.
Tästä päästäänkin yhteen kritiikkiin kirjaa kohtaan. Kyllä, Gingrich ja kumppanit (kirjoittajat ajattelivat ensin teekutsuliikettä ja myöhemmin vasta Trumpia) pelaavat lujaa. Mutta he myös voittavat. Ja voitollaan he tekevät politiikkaa ja päätöksiä, hallinoivat tietyn ideologian mukaisesti. Joten keinojen kauhistelu ei välttämättä ole kaikkein paras tapa varustautua heitä vastaan, jos he saavat haluamiaan tuloksia aikaiseksi. Eri asia sitten on, onko tämän ideologian mukainen politiikka kuinka laajoja joukkoja tukevaa. Heidän ajamalla sosiaalipolitiikalla ei paljon sossumasseja nosteta Qanonin katsomiseen.
Liittyvä kysymys on, mitä mahdollisuuksia Gingrichill oli 1980-luvulla? Demokraatit jarruttivat, ihan poliittisen mandaattinsa mukaisesti, republikaanien ideoita. Eikä siihen ollut tulossa muutosta. Demokraatit myös tekivät selväksi oman ylemmyytensä, pelasivat kovaa valtapolitiikkaa ja määräsivät kaapin paikan. Ja aikaisemmin koetettu komiteatyöskentely, senioriteetti ja KOMRPOMISSIEN hakeminen eivät johtaneet tuloksiin. Eikös tyhmän määritelmä ole, että tekee saman asian uudestaan, toivoen toisenlaista lopputulosta.
Suurmiehen elämänkerta #3
Gingrich nousi maineeseen 1980-luvulla ja huipulle 1990-luvulla. Hänestä tuli edustajainhuoneen puhemies 1995, ensimmäinen republikaani paikalla 40 vuoteen. Hän oli myös kirjan mukaan mies puolueen muuttamisessa puolueeksi, jolle tärkeimmäksi tuli voittaa vaalit ja päästä valtaan, välittämättä keinoista. No, hän tosiaan laati strategian, jolla demokraattien valta murrettiin, joten edeltävän voi tulkita negatiivisesti tai positiivisesti.
Gingrichin politiikassa ja vallantavoittelussa hyödynnettiin edustajainhuoneen uusia vaatimuksia läpinäkyvyydestä ja korruption kitkemisestä. Nämä Watergaten jälkeen esiin nousseet vaatimukset ja säännöt hyödyntämällä Gingrich pystyi kurmoottamaan demokraatteja kaksinaismoralismista ja ihan selvistä väärinkäytöksistä (joihin myös republikaanien puolue ja Newt itsekin syyllistyivät toki). Hyödyntämällä taidokkaasti mediaa, joka oli saanut uuden roolin 24/7 uutiskanavien ja CSPANin ansiosta hän huipensi kamppailunsa saamalla edustajainhuoneen puhemiehen Wrightin eroamaan.
Gingrich ei kirjan mukaan hakenut valtaa ideologialla vaan pelaamalla kovaa ja henkilökohtaisesti. Valta oli hänelle tavoite ylitse muiden. Mikä toki ymmärrettävää, kun hänen puolueensa ei valtaa ollut täysin saanut vuosikymmeniin. Ikuinen joustaminen ja demokraattien jarrutus tärkeäksi katsottuun reaganilaiseen muutokseen söi varmasti miestä.
Näin Gingrich hyökkäsi lujaa, harasi kaikessa vastaan, käytti kaikkea mitä pystyi käyttämään valtakamppailussa. Tärkeintä oli nuijia toista väsymättömästi ja omaa viestiä oli toistettavat kyllästymiseen asti. Totuudesta saattoi vähän tinkiä, toistosta ei.
Demokraatit olivat myös tottuneet toimimaan, erityisesti edustajainhuoneessa, tietyllä tavalla, joka ei aina ollut kovinkaan tasapuolista tai KOMPROMISSIhalukasta.
Tilaisuus, motiivi ja keinot. Niillä Gingrich saavutti tavoitteensa. Ja kirjoittajien mukaan samalla muutti republikaanit toiseksi puolueeksi. Ja politiikan toimintatavat. Heille Trumpin ja muiden henkilökohtainen rummutus ovat vain jatkumoa tästä. He jopa esittivät kirjaa käsitelleessä podcastissa selityksen, mikä erottaa dem ja rep toimintaa: demokraateille valtio on tärkein ja sen toimintaa tulee suojella, vaikka itselle epämieluisilla KOMPROMISSEILLA. Republikaaneille puolestaan markkinat ja yksilö ovat kaikkein tärkein, niiden tieltä joutaa valtio kärsimäänkin, koska se on alisteinen.
Tästä päästäänkin yhteen kritiikkiin kirjaa kohtaan. Kyllä, Gingrich ja kumppanit (kirjoittajat ajattelivat ensin teekutsuliikettä ja myöhemmin vasta Trumpia) pelaavat lujaa. Mutta he myös voittavat. Ja voitollaan he tekevät politiikkaa ja päätöksiä, hallinoivat tietyn ideologian mukaisesti. Joten keinojen kauhistelu ei välttämättä ole kaikkein paras tapa varustautua heitä vastaan, jos he saavat haluamiaan tuloksia aikaiseksi. Eri asia sitten on, onko tämän ideologian mukainen politiikka kuinka laajoja joukkoja tukevaa. Heidän ajamalla sosiaalipolitiikalla ei paljon sossumasseja nosteta Qanonin katsomiseen.
Liittyvä kysymys on, mitä mahdollisuuksia Gingrichill oli 1980-luvulla? Demokraatit jarruttivat, ihan poliittisen mandaattinsa mukaisesti, republikaanien ideoita. Eikä siihen ollut tulossa muutosta. Demokraatit myös tekivät selväksi oman ylemmyytensä, pelasivat kovaa valtapolitiikkaa ja määräsivät kaapin paikan. Ja aikaisemmin koetettu komiteatyöskentely, senioriteetti ja KOMRPOMISSIEN hakeminen eivät johtaneet tuloksiin. Eikös tyhmän määritelmä ole, että tekee saman asian uudestaan, toivoen toisenlaista lopputulosta.
Suurmiehen elämänkerta #3
September 1, 2021
I’m a political junkie, and this book’s subtitle grabbed me, so I’ve been eager to read it since it came out over a year ago. For almost 30 years I’ve been obsessed with the question of how, and when, and why our political life became the vicious, corrosive mess that it is today. This book addresses one small piece of that puzzle and answers—correctly, I think—the when question. Something in American public life snapped in the 1980s, and we’ve been on a downward spiral since, mostly incapable of governing ourselves like sensible adults. (How are governors like Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott, or senators like Ron Johnson, even possible?) Burning Down the House is about the role that Newt Gingrich played, starting in 1979, as an unscrupulous partisan guerilla fighter, and his success in using character assassination to overturn three decades of Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. In that sense, this book also attempts answering the who question: its central point is that Gingrich’s ruthless strategy worked at the ballot box and led to a seemingly permanent change in the personality of the GOP, putting it on a perpetual war-like footing and leaving it completely uninterested in governing. Burning Down the House does not, however, to my disappointment, answer the larger cultural questions of why the public was, and still is, so receptive to politics as a constant state of war. Gingrich is certainly central, but he can’t be the whole story.
This is relatively recent history, a period that I’ve lived through, and I vaguely remember these events unfolding in the news. The climax here is the resignation in 1989, after an Ethics Committee investigation, of the Democratic Speaker of the House, Jim Wright of Texas. The charges, which seem pretty minor today and which were never proven, resulted from a series of relentless and hyperbolic publicity attacks on Wright by Gingrich and conservative media. Zelizer describes Gingrich, of course, as we’ve always seen him: conceited, smug, and sanctimonious, conceiving of himself as both a righteous insurgent and the smartest boy in class, and someone who saw his Democratic colleagues only as enemies. Gingrich threw around accusations of corruption without much regard to the facts and very skillfully manipulated the media. And his hypocrisy knew no bounds: as Speaker himself in 1997, Gingrich was reprimanded by his own Republican House for his own ethics violations and was fined $300,000. Unlike Wright, however, Gingrich refused to resign and went right back on the attack, orchestrating the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
Speaker Jim Wright, on the other hand, Gingrich’s prime target, doesn’t seem to have been a bad guy, but he was cavalier about his own power, naively taking the permanence of a Democratic majority for granted. He wasn’t a warm person and hadn’t bothered to cultivate a circle of friends and trusted allies in Washington who would defend him in tough times. And he was remarkably unsophisticated about the power both of TV and of public opinion beyond his district. Wright clearly didn’t understand (until it was too late) how sleazy old-school legislative and leadership behavior could be made to appear if a bright enough spotlight could be focused on it. And journalists, with their post-Watergate investigative bias, were all too easily enlisted in the Republican narrative, eager to get on the band wagon, to look where they were told to look, to ask the questions they were told to ask.
Even for a political junkie like me, Burning Down the House may be a little too much inside-baseball. Zelizer’s principal focus is quite narrow—on the ethics investigations of Jim Wright that Gingrich instigated—with only highlights and generalizations about the period after Wright’s 1989 resignation. Thus we get more about House committee hearings and processes than I, at least, really wanted—for example, the comments and reactions of the various committee members, people who weren’t household names even in their own day, during the several days of hearings. I think I would have preferred if Zelizer were a bit more expansive about the meaning of these events, and about why they resonated so with the public.
Burning Down the House did teach me one important thing in this regard, however, and that is how deeply Republican legislators resented their impotence and near irrelevancy during the long period of Democratic control, from the 1960s through the 80s. Political life may have had a certain surface civility, but Democrats were completely in charge and felt little need to compromise across the aisle, leaving Republican anger to simmer beneath the surface. When bomb-throwing Gingrich arrived in 1979, more gentlemanly colleagues may have scorned his manners, but he was able to accumulate accomplices by tapping into a rich reservoir of GOP bitterness. Moreover, Republicans and conservatives had always interpreted events like the Watergate investigation and Nixon’s resignation, the Senate’s rejection in 1987 of Reagan’s Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, and the prosecution of Iran-Contra conspirators like Oliver North, as unprovoked, unwarranted Democratic attacks deserving of reprisal. Thus today, when I hear folks like Lindsey Graham complain, with real or feigned emotion, that all Democrats care about is seizing and holding power, it has always sounded to me like mere projection: if there’s anything today’s Republican Party stands for, it’s seizing and holding power at all costs. But in the historical context that Zelizer provides, partisans like Graham still recall when their party had no power.
In his final chapter—which he calls “Mindless Cannibalism” (a phrase from Jim Wright’s rather eloquent resignation speech, which you can watch online via C-SPAN)—Zeliger sums up by tracing the line of inheritance from today’s GOP to Gingrich’s tactics in the 1980s. I’m going to quote a long, illuminating paragraph in full:
Although politics was always rough in America, and the nostalgia for better times is usually misplaced, the overall level of respect for elected officials and governance rapidly diminished as a result of this era in congressional history. With distrust in government and the willingness to obstruct legislation on the rise, the better angels that were once the staples of our democracy—reasoned opposition, compromise, civil discourse, respect—could no longer keep darker drives or sentiments in check. Under Gingrich, the dark id of democratic politics triumphed in this scorched-earth battle. The Tea Party Republicans elected in 2010 in a backlash to President Obama’s first two years in office embodied everything that Gingrich had preached. In the Senate, Mitch McConnell perfected this style of politics in the upper chamber. Their generation assumed that Gingrich’s partisanship was the new normal. As Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein, two beacons of fair-minded Washington punditry, admitted in The Washington Post, “The GOP has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” Their hostage-taking approach to politics—where legislative norms were shattered and ordinary decisions, such as raising the federal debt ceiling or funding the government, became tools to achieve political power regardless of the costs to the democracy—grew directly out of Gingrich’s having made anything permissible by bringing down the Speaker. Whereas individual leaders were expendable in Gingrich’s 1989 worldview, routine legislative processes were on the cutting room floor by the time of Obama’s presidency.Hence today we have GOP governors working deliberately to endanger the schoolchildren in their states with COVID infection, in an effort to appear more contemptuous of the role of government than their colleagues and primary rivals. Is there any limit at all, these days, to the extremes of political derangement? In many ways, I think, what today’s GOP politicians and pundits have learned from Newt Gingrich is how to express, as flamboyantly as possible, their hatred for this country as it actually is.
September 10, 2021
The gossipy and unproductive ways to talk about Newt Gingrich are prodigious. Even I have a Facebook photo album devoted to this type of trash.
But to have a serious conversation about Newt means to shuck aside the electromagnetic pulse op-eds (honestly? respect) and the womanizing and the cruelty in service of a higher objective, to examine how Republican power works.
Newt recognized the core vulnerability of Democrats: holding principles. To this day, we get clobbered because we have actual external principles that we consider more important than politics. I agree with this approach, but it also means we’re willing to eat our own when right-wing provocateurs intentionally push our buttons in service of building their power and articulating their narratives. It’s because of Newt that we had Trump and Trumpism; it’s anyone’s guess how and when the falsely unique United States blend of authoritarianism will come back, and if it will permanently endure this time.
But to have a serious conversation about Newt means to shuck aside the electromagnetic pulse op-eds (honestly? respect) and the womanizing and the cruelty in service of a higher objective, to examine how Republican power works.
Newt recognized the core vulnerability of Democrats: holding principles. To this day, we get clobbered because we have actual external principles that we consider more important than politics. I agree with this approach, but it also means we’re willing to eat our own when right-wing provocateurs intentionally push our buttons in service of building their power and articulating their narratives. It’s because of Newt that we had Trump and Trumpism; it’s anyone’s guess how and when the falsely unique United States blend of authoritarianism will come back, and if it will permanently endure this time.
March 14, 2025
Read this for class, this one is my favorite of the books I’ve had to read for this class because it’s a lot more current. I feel like it gave me a good insight into partisanship these days. Finishing it feeling defeated tho🫠sad reality
October 8, 2020
An architect of our current dysfunctional government
October 10, 2020
Newt Gingrich Attacking Wright
When Gingrich took reforms for transparency created after Watergate and turned them into weapons against basically good legislators and destroying them. With the Fairness Doctrine gone, Republicans could go on talk radio and say incriminating things about Democratic opponents in platforms they would not be able to defend themselves. The Republicans could also say things that were half truths and insinuate something worse. This was the end of bipartisanship and politics and getting along. Gingrich could bring down Speaker Wright.
When Gingrich took reforms for transparency created after Watergate and turned them into weapons against basically good legislators and destroying them. With the Fairness Doctrine gone, Republicans could go on talk radio and say incriminating things about Democratic opponents in platforms they would not be able to defend themselves. The Republicans could also say things that were half truths and insinuate something worse. This was the end of bipartisanship and politics and getting along. Gingrich could bring down Speaker Wright.
December 1, 2020
An important look at a figure responsible for some of the win-at-all-costs hyper-partisanship making US politics dysfunctional today. Half the book was spent on way too much moment-by-moment detail about the fall of Democratic Speaker of the House Jim Wright in the late 1980s, followed by a rushed final chapter taking us from there to today.
May 25, 2020
This was a political smear at its best. I was interested in history not lopsided opinions. Consequently, I did not enjoy it, but I'm sure there are others who will.
I received this ARC from NetGalley and Penguin Press in exchange for an honest review.
I received this ARC from NetGalley and Penguin Press in exchange for an honest review.
January 18, 2021
Hard work for a concise understanding
Written for hardcore political people only. A casual reader who just wants to understand the degeneration of the Republican party has to wade through over 360 pages.
Written for hardcore political people only. A casual reader who just wants to understand the degeneration of the Republican party has to wade through over 360 pages.
September 25, 2021
If you’re wondering how we got to the hyper partisan political environment that culminated in Donald Trump ascending to the Presidency, look no further than Newt Gingrich. Gingrich spawned the style combat aimed at delegitimizing his opponents by whatever means necessary. To quote the author, In Gingrich’s world, Republicans practiced a ruthless style of partisanship that ignored the conventional norms of Washington and continually tested how far politicians could go in bending government institutions to suit their partisan purposes. Sadly, the GOP goal was not to negotiate or legislate but to do everything necessary to maintain partisan control. This partisanship (now by both parties) has only intensified over the years. This book effectively lays out how the new normal in Washington was created.
March 27, 2022
A fairly dry procedural poly-sci and yet this book is a great reminder that Trumpism did not start with Trump.
It also didn't start with the grim reaper Mitch McConnell and his obstructionist caucus. Nor did it start with the Tea Party and John Boehner.
It absolutely started with Newt Gingrich over 30 years ago, when he substituted cooperative governing with partisan attacking.
The final quarter of Burning Down the House talked about the strange case of Speaker Wright's aide that was a violent felon. It was a sordid true crime portion of the book.
It also didn't start with the grim reaper Mitch McConnell and his obstructionist caucus. Nor did it start with the Tea Party and John Boehner.
It absolutely started with Newt Gingrich over 30 years ago, when he substituted cooperative governing with partisan attacking.
The final quarter of Burning Down the House talked about the strange case of Speaker Wright's aide that was a violent felon. It was a sordid true crime portion of the book.
February 22, 2022
Read this book as a researcher for a documentary on preserving democracy (called Preserving Democracy, check it out on your PBS app :) ) and if you want to see the start of “yelling into the void to get your point across”, Newt Gingrich has given us all a masterclass to learn from. Julian really gets in the mind of his motives and reasonings in a way I enjoyed reading. May be too inside for some, but I found it an “easy” read when it comes to political reads.
January 20, 2021
3.5 stars
April 28, 2023
The one where Newt Gingrich decided to torch the American political system.
An interesting and accessible written account of the rise of Newt Gingrich and a new kind of politics in the USA. I think this was a good book if you're interested in the subject . I learned a lot of interesting new facts : for example that the democratic party had between the mid 1930s-mid 1990s almost always the majority in the House. Or that Trump seriously considered making Gingrich his VP pick.
I only give it 3,5 stars because the book missed something, a certain star quality, for me to rate it higher. But all in all it was a solid read
An interesting and accessible written account of the rise of Newt Gingrich and a new kind of politics in the USA. I think this was a good book if you're interested in the subject . I learned a lot of interesting new facts : for example that the democratic party had between the mid 1930s-mid 1990s almost always the majority in the House. Or that Trump seriously considered making Gingrich his VP pick.
I only give it 3,5 stars because the book missed something, a certain star quality, for me to rate it higher. But all in all it was a solid read
February 22, 2021
A deep dive into Gingrich’s take-down of Jim Wright, Speaker of the House, in 1989. There is lots and lots of detail here, a feast for current event junkies, but a bit too much for the somewhat more casual reader. I was hoping for more details of Gingrich’s own downfall, and a more thorough examination of how Gingrich’s scorched-earth politics have metastasized into today’s political climate.
Zelizer portrays Gingrich as a shallow, grasping, hypocritical, self-absorbed politician with a boundless belief in his superiority and righteousness, but also as a politician who is effective (to a point) in promoting his agenda, even at the expense of his party and country. Gingrich changed the way politics operated in Congress, and not for the better. In the wake of his ascendancy as Speaker, he left behind the tattered carcass of respect and cooperation. Certainly, the boys’ club of Congress needed to be brought into the 20th century, but the way Republicans have stonewalled Democrats, even voting against legislation that they wrote in order to deny a Democrat a victory, is positively medieval.
The worst thing Republicans have done is make US citizens feel the government is their enemy, and have shamelessly used race to do so. Zelizer tiptoes around the issue of racism, but perhaps this book is not the place for a study of racism in American politics and history. Zelizer does deliver a hard look at Gingrich, and while not dwelling on much outside the Jim Wright episode (which saw Wright retire before a House vote on his ethics), manages to limn Gingrich’s own ethics issues which got him reprimanded and fined, as well as briefly detailing his adultery while at the same time pursuing Bill Clinton’s impeachment for lying about a consensual sexual affair.
Recommended for political junkies who would enjoy a very detailed look at Gingrich's toppling of a Speaker of the House. I was hoping for a broader treatment of Gingrich's role in polarizing politics. The subtitle, "Rise of the New Republican Party," promised more than it delivered.
Zelizer portrays Gingrich as a shallow, grasping, hypocritical, self-absorbed politician with a boundless belief in his superiority and righteousness, but also as a politician who is effective (to a point) in promoting his agenda, even at the expense of his party and country. Gingrich changed the way politics operated in Congress, and not for the better. In the wake of his ascendancy as Speaker, he left behind the tattered carcass of respect and cooperation. Certainly, the boys’ club of Congress needed to be brought into the 20th century, but the way Republicans have stonewalled Democrats, even voting against legislation that they wrote in order to deny a Democrat a victory, is positively medieval.
The worst thing Republicans have done is make US citizens feel the government is their enemy, and have shamelessly used race to do so. Zelizer tiptoes around the issue of racism, but perhaps this book is not the place for a study of racism in American politics and history. Zelizer does deliver a hard look at Gingrich, and while not dwelling on much outside the Jim Wright episode (which saw Wright retire before a House vote on his ethics), manages to limn Gingrich’s own ethics issues which got him reprimanded and fined, as well as briefly detailing his adultery while at the same time pursuing Bill Clinton’s impeachment for lying about a consensual sexual affair.
Recommended for political junkies who would enjoy a very detailed look at Gingrich's toppling of a Speaker of the House. I was hoping for a broader treatment of Gingrich's role in polarizing politics. The subtitle, "Rise of the New Republican Party," promised more than it delivered.
October 28, 2020
Want to understand why Congress and the political landscape has become so polarized and partisan? This book explores the origins in stellar and riveting fashion. It demonstrates how Newt Gingrich employed the tools at his disposal to attack his fellow of members, not so much because of some perceived shortcomings of his colleagues, but to create havoc, sow mistrust in the institution and parlay it into Republican power. Yet, the monster that he created ended up devouring his own career. Sadly, his legacy lives on in what we daily witness on Twitter or the various news feeds.
An excellent, excellent book!
An excellent, excellent book!
March 17, 2021
An enjoyable how-we-got-to-this-point read about how Newt Gingrich really made his bones: taking down then-House Speaker Jim Wright in 1989. It's easy looking back to call Newt the antichrist, particularly since Wright's offenses seem pretty small potatoes today, but you can see all the mistakes Democrats made: underestimating him and the way he used the media to his advantage, not having learned the lessons of Watergate from the younger reform-minded Dems, and Wright's good-old-boys style. Zelizer got some good stuff, including the Ethics Commission hearings (deep in the Rayburn Building basement) and access to Newt's archives (even though he didn't grant an interview).
April 19, 2021
Zelizer has written probably the most comprehensive book about Newt Gingrich, an obnoxious but important person in our political history.
Zelizer makes the (probably true) point that Newt Gingrich was the progenitor of Donald Trump.
Zelizer makes the (probably true) point that Newt Gingrich was the progenitor of Donald Trump.
July 11, 2021
A must-read for anyone who wants to understand how America's political system got to where it is now.
Zelizer chronicles how a newly-minted Representative named Newt Gingrich employed partisan smear tactics and manipulated the media to topple Speaker Jim Wright. Gingrich normalized partisan warfare and paved the way for the obstructionist GOP of today. Other parties share some of the blame, of course, but the lion's share falls on Newt.
This book plods at times, but it makes its main points clearly and convincingly.
Zelizer chronicles how a newly-minted Representative named Newt Gingrich employed partisan smear tactics and manipulated the media to topple Speaker Jim Wright. Gingrich normalized partisan warfare and paved the way for the obstructionist GOP of today. Other parties share some of the blame, of course, but the lion's share falls on Newt.
This book plods at times, but it makes its main points clearly and convincingly.
December 1, 2021
Well-written and I take the author's main points, I just didn't personally need a whole book on this episode to get the point. I'd be willing to read hundreds of pages if this was a story about a political innovator or parliamentary genius but it wasn't. Gingrich's use of C-SPAN and a binder full of pressing clippings (you'll hear A LOT about that binder) does not make him a LBJ-like figure and this book is no "Master of the Senate" (which was MUCH longer and worth every page).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews