It's always struck me as odd that whenever Democrats attempt to diagnose the root cause of our bitter partisan divide, their answer is always bitter, partisan and divisive. In the post-Trump era, this paradigm has accelerated to the point in which opinion leaders will routinely go on MSNBC and say, in so many words, that: "It's so sad how polarized our politics have become. If the people who disagreed with us weren't such evil, sexist, bigoted, hate-filled wretches of society, then the discourse would be so much more considerate." As the ever-clever Clarice said to Hannibal Lecter, "You see a lot, Doctor. But are you strong enough to point that high-powered perception at yourself?" But self-reflection be damned! There's no time to address their own internalized hate when Trump, a man who has been out of office for almost two years, is destroying the country! So they say.
But it's not enough to deride and stigmatize millions of Americans. You need villains. Singular figures upon which scorn can be heaped. That's precisely what Dana Milbank's latest cash grab of a book appears to be attempting. His work, "The Destructionists: The Twenty-Five Year Crack-Up of the Republican Party," argues that a straight line can be drawn from Gingrich's 1994 Contract with America to the storming of the Capitol. Yes, you read that correctly. Milbank thanks the efforts of Gingrich to mobile conservatives around a strong, cohesive platform of fiscal responsibility and combating corruption directly led to a mob storming the United States Capitol.
Sure, we conservatives are going to listen to a deeply partisan and bitter hateful Post Toastie and ultra-leftist like Milbank, who wakes up in the morning hating. In a way, I feel sorry for him. He must have few friends who can tolerate him.
He's not the first talking head to pin political polarization on Gingrich's back. In fact, much of the book appears to be an extended riff on a 2018 Atlantic profile on Newt titled "How Newt Gingrich Destroyed American Politics" by McKay Coppins. The piece was complemented with over-saturated photos of Gingrich that attempted to make him look every inch the political ghoul they accused him of being. Just like Milbank, Coppins draws a line from Gingrich to Trump. It's a trope as tired as it is trite. Both, in fact, are tiny leftist men with a weak case.
The irony is that Gingrich actually worked with Democratic President Bill Clinton. They disagreed on policy but compromised often. More than Reagan and O'Neill ever did. Additionally, Gingrich rooted out real corruption in Congress and the majority of his reforms were quite sensible. His predecessor, Democrat Jim Wright, was a notoriously corrupt congressman who took kickbacks like he was eating breakfast. But this isn't really about policy, is it?
If it's about partisanship, it hardly started with Gingrich. If any single legislator in the late 21st century caused the polarizing of politics, it was Democrat royalty and lady murdering Senator Ted Kennedy. His 1987 speech opposing the Reagan nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court was so hate-filled and partisan that it was inducted into Webster's dictionary.
Gingrich's Contract with America was about policy, but it also gave conservatives something that the elite had spent years fighting: a unifying message. The elites have the money, the press, and the political elites, but they don't have the people, much like Ronald Reagan. By unifying them in one message, they earned a seat at the table and made real, positive changes for this country. Leaders like Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich gave the great silent majority a voice and a platform. The elites will never forgive them for giving fire to the people.
Ironically, Nancy Reagan once told Newt in public that the Reagan torch was passing to him.
In the meantime, Newt has nothing to worry about. His place in history is secure.