Newt Gingrich and the Moral Heist of South Carolina

John Shammas

Image © Gage Skidmore

Predicting the future is a job for clairvoyants – not political commentators, and thank God. Summoning a reactionary whim as a legitimate claim is often tempting, especially when on the eve of such a crucial primary, in the buckle of the Bible belt that is South Carolina, Newt Gingrich’s ex-Wife came forward with a damaging (and particularly timely) revelation that must of had Romney’s 2012 campaign popping open some premature champagne. However, what commentators learnt from the South Carolina primary is that the archaic circus that is the race for the Republican nomination is more akin to a Machiavellian episode of Twin Peaks than a political race. It cannot be envisioned, calculated, analyzed or even discussed in the same way as other political races because time and time again we are reminded that whilst intellectuals like to belittle the Republican field of nominees and those who support them as callow, simplistic and reactionary, as a demographic they are curiously unpredictable.

Mitt Romney, the “former” front runner as we now must call him (check back next week), came under such scrutiny with regard to his involvement in Bain Capital that he was labelled by his fellow free-market-loving Republicans as a “vulture capitalist”, signalling a civil war within the GOP field. It seemed that such a civil war would be coming to an abrupt end on Friday night when the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an “open marriage” arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife, an allegation that would surely tear the umbilical cord between Newt and his passionate, evangelical Christian base for good. You could almost envision what would consequentially transpire in the coming days. Santorum would surge from recruiting the disenfranchised Gingirch voters to his cause, Gingirch would drop out, begrudgingly endorsing Santorum but ultimately Romney would prevail and secure his candidacy. It was all so clear-cut. So inevitable. Signed, sealed, and all we had to do was wait for it to be delivered.

What followed was, to so many, a shock. Gingrich won. And boy, he won comfortably. There were no grand allusions towards King David this time, no humble rhetoric with regard to the redemptive path he might of walked, no talk of regret and certainly no plea for forgiveness. Gingrich deployed his only strength: his ability to rally conservatives into a frenzied siege mentality by blaming the media – why? Because it works. The extent to which this tactic was effective was admittedly impressive, but the way in which it was achieved however, was not. He rallied the CNN debate crowd on the eve on the South Carolina primary against a “destructive, vicious, negative” media run by “liberal elites” – no doubt in cahoots with the “socialist”, “secular” trend of which he speaks of so regularly.

The essential question that emerged from the chaos of the South Carolina primary which must be asked is simply this: how legitimate is the moral currency of the leading candidates in the GOP field? Exit polls demonstrate that married Women were amongst the strongest supporters of Gingrich’s victory, alongside evangelicals. South Carolinians have consistently proven to be issue voters, and yet they have put a morally bankrupt candidate on a pedestal in what is increasingly being dubbed the most important election of a lifetime. Evangelical Christians should not be characterized as simply righteous in their electoral patterns, nor should they be characterized are politically ill informed. They are confused, they are angry and they are easily exploitable for a man like Gingrich. It is a curious state of affairs when we have arrived at a situation in which perhaps those slightly more cerebral evangelical voters might opt for Santorum, a much more extreme social conservative – a realization that is testament to the extent of which we can characterize Gingrich as a skilful, rabble-rousing faux-conservative.

Gingrich will, before and after the upcoming Florida primary, continue to spout his contradictory rhetoric about being an “anti-establishment” candidate. He will continue to rabble-rouse, claiming to anyone who will listen that he is a victim of a “liberal” and “elite” media hell bent on sullying his reputation. But the truth is that South Carolina wasn’t a moral victory against a “liberal” media for Newt Gingrich; it was a heist. The likelihood is that he will fail in his attempt to continue beguiling value voters towards his cause like he did in South Carolina, however it is hard to say anything about the outcome of this race with much conviction. After all this is Twin Peaks, and nothing is as it seems.