Gingrich Case Is a Lesson in Solidarity

As I watched Newt Gingrich get reelected speaker of the House, it dawned on me that I was not outraged that Republicans had just made a man with the gall to lie to the House of Representatives the third most powerful man in the United States. Rather, I was envious of how Republicans were willing to stick together and take one for the team.

Then I tried to imagine Democrats standing behind a leader whom 65% of America said they wanted out of office. Having seen the way Democrats ran from President Clinton in 1994, it is just inconceivable to me that Democrats would show the same backbone Republicans displayed.

Republicans--unlike Democrats--apparently understand that while their vote for Gingrich may hurt them individually in the short term, their party, their ideology and their vision for America will benefit in the long run. This leads me to conclude that the most important lesson Democrats can learn from Gingrich’s reelection is that you don’t cut and run from your leaders when things get tough.

To me, the Republicans’ willingness to stick together and stand behind their leader is a sign of strength. What it shows the American people is that these folks are willing to take the heat. And if they’re willing to take the heat for Gingrich, then they’re willing to take the heat for their constituents. Conversely, people believe that a political party afraid to defend itself will be afraid to defend them.

History has borne this lesson out. When Abraham Lincoln took a risky stance against expanding slavery into the new U.S territories, the Republican Party didn’t hang him out to dry. The United States stayed the United States because those men stood behind a leader whose policy may have seemed calamitous at the time, but was invaluable to the future direction of the nation.

More recently, during the 1994 election, the Democratic Party, with a leader whose poll numbers were slumping at the time, fell apart because we as a party refused to stick together. Everybody was pointing figures at everybody else. Instead of standing behind our president, we were busy running from him. We paid dearly for this lack of gumption at the polls. Republicans wiped the floor with us in 1994.

Fast forward to September 1996. The GOP was faced with similar prospects to what Democrats faced in 1994: complete political annihilation. Republicans, however, chose to stick together, swallowing their pride and giving the Democrats short-term victories. They begrudgingly passed traditionally Democratic initiatives like a 90-cent raise in the minimum wage and the Kennedy-Kassebaum health care reform. They even appropriated more money for programs they despised such as student loans and other education initiatives. Because they stuck together through their tactical retreat, Republicans were rewarded at the polls, retaining control of both houses of Congress.

But though Republicans retained control of the House in 1996, Gingrich’s ethical troubles put him at risk of losing his speakership, which could have thrown the GOP into chaos. In response, Gingrich’s allies in the GOP leadership circled the wagons around their man. They not only stood behind Gingrich, but also went out to speak on his behalf. One of Gingrich’s defenders even went as far as to call it “refreshing” that Gingrich admitted to lying to Congress.

I’m not saying Democrats should go out and defend such lying. The point is, Republicans refused to cut one of their own loose. Even moderates who often disagree with Gingrich on policy matters voted for him. Whether some voted for Gingrich out of gratitude for what he had done for them in the past or because they buckled under an intense lobbying effort, the Republican Party stands to reap the benefits for their loyalty to Gingrich.

History has shown that when you stand together, ultimately you win politically. The reason we have a Republican Congress and Gingrich as the speaker of the House today is because Republicans understand Ben Franklin’s axiom that you hang together or you hang separately. Democrats would do well to heed this message and stand behind their leaders.