This is an interesting take on Newt Gingrich:
Inside D.C., it sounds very strange to say that Gingrich is an "outsider." Gingrich has eaten from just about every trough imaginable inside the Beltway. And yet, he's always been very clear that he wants to ("fundamentally," "historically," "categorically" and "radically") overturn the existing order. Some critics always thought, plausibly, that such pronouncements were part of his act or a sign of his megalomania.
But there's another possibility: It's true. Moreover, the times may be ripe for precisely the sort of vexing, vainglorious and all-too-human revolutionary Gingrich claims to be. That's the argument a few people have been wrestling with. Gingrich, after all, is the only candidate to actually move the government rightward. While getting wealthy off the old order, he's been plotting for decades how to get rid of it. To paraphrase Lenin, perhaps the K Streeters paid Gingrich to build the gallows he will hang them on?
That remains a stretch. Mitt Romney is still the sensible choice if you believe these are rough, but generally sensible, times. If, however, you think these are crazy and extraordinary times, then perhaps they call for a crazy, extraordinary — very high-risk, very high-reward — figure like Gingrich.
The early talk among the punditry was that given how terrible a cool, flamboyant president turned out to be, what the country needed as an antidote was a good dose of buttoned-down dullness, like Mitch Daniels. But maybe the GOP base sees something we're missing, that crazy times call for crazy chances. But, whew! "High-risk, high-reward" might be OK as an occasional life strategy, but i'm not sure we should go there for the presidency. Aren't we in the middle of seeing where that kind of gamble can end up?
Comments
Nah, we're still digging out of that kind of gamble from the early 00s.
And, Gingrich isn't really an insider if you squint your eyes and tilt your head just right? That's more wishful thinking than interesting take.
Here's an interesting bit of speculation that Gingrich suffers from bipolar disorder:
I have a low opinion of diagnosis at a distance, bu the man does fit the symptoms.
And there's nothing wrong with the Obama presidency that a less recalcitrant Congress wouldn't cure.
I know a little bit about bipolar, and the one element missing from this "remote diagnosis" is anything about the down side of manic-depression. Referring to Gingrich's despair after the breakup of his marriage doesn't do it -- that's the kind of situational depression we can all succumb to, not the kind of clinical depression rooted in brain chemistry.
I know more than almost anybody about bipolar, for reasons I will not discuss here. Many bipolar sufferers never feel depressed. They are always manic, with delusions of genius. They are almost indistiguishable from amphetamine abusers when they refuse to take their meds, as often happens.
Never known one of those. My experience has been being afraid for someone during the mania, then glad about the depression because it's easier to deal with than the mania, then guilty about feeling glad. I know it's picky, but shouldn't perpetual mania be called something other than "bi"polar?
The Slate article Littlejohn links to bears the headline "Is Newt Nuts?
Consider the symptoms: Bouts of grandiosity, megalomania, irritability, impulsiveness, spending sprees
Unipolar euphoric mania is the rarest of the mood disorders, and it really doesn't fit Newt. For one thing, if you have it, you're not going to be fat.
I'd guess narcissistic personality disorder, I suppose, but a pretty mild case of it. He's not really disfunctional enough to be categorized as having a personality disorder. Nor is he functional enough to be categorized as being well-balanced.