Goodbye Gingrich

This column was written by John Nichols.

So what earthshaking advice did Gingrich offer Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani upon concluding that he would not join the men who would be Bush in their little romp?

Don't forget to use the Internet in your campaigning, guys.

Seriously.

That's the "big idea" with which Gingrich exited the competition.

The truth is that Gingrich has never been an ideas man.

Original thoughts were never what distinguished Gingrich from his fellow Republicans - and, frankly, from most Democrats. Rather, he has stood out as someone who recognizes that ideas exist. Unlike the current president, Gingrich reads the papers. He reads the books that matter - or at least the reviews. He is conversant with the zeitgeist, and capable of mustering independent observations that might be considered, if not groundbreaking, at least valid. As such Gingrich is, like Gene McCarthy and Ronald Reagan were and Jimmy Carter and Gary Hart remain, capable of adding something more than mere talking points to the political discussion. That cannot be said of the announced candidates for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, with the exception of Ron Paul and, perhaps, Mike Huckabee.

This explains why grassroots Republicans were excited - genuinely and broadly so - by the prospect that Gingrich might make a late entry into the race for their party's nomination.

Republicans were looking for a competent candidate.

But it should be made clear that no one who was engaged in the search for "next" or "big" ideas was looking to Newt Gingrich for smart. The former speaker is a strategist. He's good at playing the political game - good enough to get most of the national media to engage in speculation about him as presidential timber at precisely the point when he happens to be selling a book and launching a website.

Gingrich's brief flirtation with a candidacy offered the Republican Party no more than a prospect with basic skills and an ability to think on his feet. Once upon a time - when the party faced choices between the likes of Wendell Willkie, Robert Taft, Tom Dewey and Earl Warren, or even Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller and Reagan - it would have been absurd and insulting to suggest that evidence of basic intellectual engagement was enough to distinguish a presidential contender.

But after two terms of following George W. Bush and Dick Cheney deeper and deeper into a desert of intellect, Republicans can perhaps be forgiven for confusing a fellow with a half-empty canteen for an oasis. As for the media that Gingrich played so masterfully, let's be honest: If mainstream print and broadcast reporters had any interest whatsoever in ideas, as opposed to horserace metaphors, does anyone honestly imagine that the empty pronouncements of a Fred Thompson or a Rudy Giuliani - or, for that matter, a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama - would be treated seriously?
By John Nichols
Reprinted with permission from the The Nation