Gingrich Now Owes His Party

WASHINGTON — Inside-the-beltway question of the week: What politician was quoted last week saying, “If those . . . who are conservative say that bureaucracy and compulsion is not the answer, then what are we going to say to a child born in a poor neighborhood with a broken home and no one to help them rise?”

If you guessed Mario M. Cuomo or Jesse Jackson, you guessed wrong. The author of this liberal statement is none other than the newly elected speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Honorable Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

Most Washington wise heads were quick to dismiss Gingrich’s words as mere platitudes by a man who barely got reelected speaker amid an ethical firestorm. After all, say the wise heads, Gingrich said nice things about poor people when he was first elected speaker in 1995, and then proceeded to go after the very safety net that protected the poor. True enough--but that was ‘95, this is ‘97, and oh what a difference a few years in a politician’s life can make.

The counterview from this corner is that the political landscape has changed dramatically in two short years, and the world according to Newt has changed with it, however reluctantly.

Think what you will about Gingrich, but stupid he is not. This man, much like his Southern soul mate at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, is a survivor. After the ’94 election, Gingrich knew he was holding aces and could bet the ranch. But it’s ’97 now, and he, better than anyone, knows he’s holding deuces. And in the world of high-stakes Washington politics, deuces alone ain’t gonna cut it.

So what now for the once mighty Gingrich? How will his current standing affect the rest of Washington and, maybe the most intriguing question, how will the relationship between Gingrich and President Bill Clinton change in light of Gingrich’s problems--and Clinton’s?

The House: Probably nowhere will the impact of Gingrich’s current problems be greater than in his own backyard. The signs of just how much change were everywhere in recent weeks.

One incident in particular underscored Gingrich’s diminishing influence. Rep. Bill Archer (R-Tex.), chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, met privately with Clinton for a one-on-one discussion about the key issues of taxes, Social Security and Medicare. The idea, two years ago, of a committee chairman meeting with the president without the speaker was unthinkable. After the ’94 GOP takeover, Gingrich assumed extraordinary power over the House and its committees. He was not to be messed with. No more.

Watch for other GOP leaders to follow in Archer’s footsteps. Committee chairmen will set more of their own agendas and, in the process, minimize Gingrich’s clout. Why? Because the committee chairmen chafed at his heavy-handed tactics in the last Congress. They yearned to be free--just like their Democratic predecessors. Now they can be. How ironic. The powerful committee-chair system that Gingrich campaigned against in ‘94, and which helped the Republicans take Congress, is now reemerging--but this time in GOP hands.

But probably the biggest change in the House will be Gingrich’s loss of the most important lever any congressional leader has. Those words, used so often and effectively by Gingrich after the GOP took back the House after 40 years, were: “You owe me.” And, boy, did they ever.

But try that line now, Mr. Speaker, and you’re more than likely to hear Republicans say, “No, with all due respect, you owe me.” And, boy, does he ever. Many of the same Republicans who saved Gingrich’s speakership were almost beaten at the polls in November for being lock-step supporters of Gingrich. And that was before his troubles became so public.

For those members to support Gingrich after his ethical lapses became such big news is the ultimate in loyalty. And for Gingrich to try to muscle anyone would backfire. Even the nine Republicans who voted against or present. Gingrich can also feel fairly safe. The GOP majority in the House is now smaller and every vote will be needed.

The Senate--Perhaps no one has gained more from Gingrich’s problems than Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. The Mississippi Republican, who had a reputation as very partisan and very conservative, took over for Bob Dole near the end of the last Congress.

But, in short order, Lott orchestrated deals on a range of stalled legislation, from welfare reform to health care. In fact, many analysts credit this end-of-term spate of legislation with saving GOP control of Congress by robbing Democratic challengers of the issue of a “do-nothing Congress.”

Even more interesting is the growing relationship between Clinton and Lott. According to friends of both, there is a mutual respect between the two. Clinton was impressed with Lott’s ability to move legislation without resorting to public ranting. For his part, Lott respects Clinton’s tenacity and his communication skills. Beyond this, both come from small Southern states and do not need interpreters when they meet. Unlike Gingrich, who is from the new urban South far removed from pork rinds, Lott is a good ol’ boy who understands the art of horse trading vital to successful Southern politicians.

So as Gingrich’s power ebbs, Lott’s flows. Expect Lott to increasingly set the GOP agenda and to keep an open line to the White House. Lott likes his new job and knows that to keep it a GOP Congress needs to deliver--and without help from Clinton, that is probably not possible.

Clinton: The White House was said to be ecstatic over Gingrich’s reelection as speaker. The theory goes that an “ethically challenged” speaker will be less likely to go after the president’s own problems. There’s some truth to this, but it is only part of the dynamic. After all, there are plenty of Republicans who can and will pursue Clinton’s ethical problems. Beyond that, barring any new disclosures, the bet here is that Gingrich’s problems will be a non-issue with voters quite soon. (“Barring any new disclosures” is an important caveat here, given the ham-handed way the Republicans are handling the Gingrich ethics hearings.)

Gingrich still would like to be president, but knows his standing with the public is so tarnished that a run is nearly impossible. He needs big accomplishments to help him out of a big hole.

Big accomplishments in Gingrich’s case would mean putting himself at odds with the right wing of his party--at times by seeking a coalition of moderate Republicans and conservative-moderate Democrats. He could begin with real campaign-finance reform, including public funding of all federal races; severe restrictions on PACs, and completely closing the loopholes for so-called soft money.

Gingrich could revisit welfare reform, since evidence is now mounting that true reform in the states will require far more federal assistance. He could also seriously face the crisis in Social Security and Medicare by increasing the retirement age, raising taxes on wealthier seniors and accepting and selling the Boskin commission recommendation on reducing the cost-of-living index.

All this would require two things: being willing to invest enormous political capital (virtually all he has left) and taking Clinton as a partner.

If ever two politicians could use each other’s help it is Clinton and Gingrich. All the “big” things Gingrich could do Clinton should do with him, for two reasons. One, they are right for the country; and two, they are big enough moves to perhaps overshadow the ethical abyss both are facing.

Remember that brief, wonderful day in New Hampshire a few years ago, when Clinton and Gingrich held a joint town meeting? They shook hands on a commission on campaign-finance reform. It was a lovely moment that gave the public, however fleeting, some hope for real bipartisan progress. The presidential campaign season ended any hope for a commission, but did not diminish the magic of the moment.

Both Clinton and Gingrich need big moments now. Both need to refocus the political debate from their respective ethics problems to the big problems facing the country. If they are bold enough and big enough, together they could make GOPAC and Whitewater seem trivial in comparison. Think of it: Two of the biggest players bailing out the country and, in the process, bailing out themselves.

Do you believe in miracles?*