When the dust had finally settled and the casualties had finally been counted, even the most confident of Republicans could not help breathe a sigh of relief. An unprecedented change had gripped American government—the Grand Old Party was in control of the legislative branch. When the results were finally tallied, the GOP had a net gain of nine senators, 51 representatives, and control of a majority of the nation’s state governments.
And Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich deserves much of the credit, or blame. During the campaign season, Rep. Gingrich tirelessly visited 137 congressional districts elucidating and selling his vision of the future and renewal of American civilization. Time labels him the “GOP guerrilla” spreading the “politics of anger,” but Rep. Gingrich and other Republicans respond that they are the reflection, not the creators, of this anger. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll seems to agree, reporting that Americans trust the Republicans of the new Congress more than President Bill Clinton to change social policy.
At the same time, Rep. Gingrich and other Republicans have proven adept at making headlines for saying and doing things that, at least on the surface, belie the popularity of their beliefs. To help make sense of the implications and the source of the GOP sweep, the Harvard Political Review had the opportunity to conduct an interview with Rep. Gingrich.
HPR: Judging by the results of the election, the mood of the electorate has changed. In what way has the mood changed, and how do Republicans plan to either change or tap into the new political climate?
Gingrich: While the results of November 8 were a stunning victory, that does not necessarily mean the mood of the public has changed, except that the American people—who are generally centrist-conservative—realized that the Republican party best represented what they were thinking. The nation voted, woke up the following day, and was delighted with what happened. The nation voted decisively at every level, from state legislature to county commissioner, from governor to the House and Senate; at every level there was a Republican tide in every part of the country. We carry a much larger burden than we would have expected because of the country’s decision that it, in fact, wanted a new leadership team and that it wanted the president to compromise with the Congress. It did not want to the Congress to compromise with the president.
HPR: You have planned an intense legislative agenda when the Congress convenes in January. How will the Republicans pace themselves over the next two years, and do you see this Republican-controlled Congress as a one-shot deal or the beginning of a new era?
Gingrich: We are going to do everything we can—starting the opening day—to keep our word. We’re going to do everything we can to pass the Contract [with America] we committed to. And we’re going to recognize that you have to have the American people if you’re going to change anything. It can’t be done in Washington. It has to be done across the country. During the first 100 days, our commitment is to get a vote on everything that was in the Contract with America. We can’t guarantee we’ll pass it. We can guarantee a vote.
HPR: Critics have assailed the Contract with America as little more than a hodge-podge of politically popular and expedient proposals designed to make waves during the campaign season. What do you see as the underlying philosophy binding the Contract, and does this philosophical foundation represent the core agenda of the Republican party in the future?
Gingrich: A public confidence in Congress and other institutions reached an all-time low, we felt we had to restore the fabric of trust between the American people and their officeholders. We have made a promise, and we are going to keep it. That in itself will go a long way towards a continued Republican majority. At the same time, we have to engage in a deep, thorough dialogue with the American people on how to shrink the federal government to achieve a balance. We cannot replace the social engineering of the left with a social engineering of the right.
HPR: One of the provisions of the Contract is term limits. Given the massive turnover just witnessed, are term limits still necessary?
Gingrich: The country has sent the message that they want change, and we’re going to give every member of the House a number of occasions to vote on whether or not they want to vote with the country or whether they want to stand defiantly and say, “No, we don’t believe you’re serious.” So you’ll see every single thing in the Contrat voted on. We are looking at reform of Congress over the long term, not just the immediate problems, but preventing problems in the future.
HPR: Ronald Reagan and George [H.W.] Bush often pointed to the inability to overcome gridlock as an impediment to governing. How will the American people see Washington now, and who do you think will bear the brunt of the blame for the obstructionism—President Clinton or the Republican-controlled Congress?
Gingrich: The Republicans, who have not been in charge of the House for 40 years, have a pretty big interest in getting something done. The president has an interest in getting something done. Senator Dole, who may well be our presidential nominee, has an interest in the Senate in getting something done. So, in a funny kind of way, you may have a moment in ’95—for 10 or 11 months—all of us have a good reason to want to be positive and productive.
I have no interest in engaging in a debate with those who would raise taxes. That issue is over; it’s gone. We’re not going to do it. I have used the phrase: “Cooperation, yes. Compromise, no.” This country has been voting since 1968 against the Great Society. And the track record is unending. The only two Democrats to win since 1968 both ran as New Democrats. I mean, Jimmy Carter was an outside reformer, not a liberal, and proud of it; Bill Clinton ran as a New Democrat who favored middle-class tax cuts, reinventing government, and welfare reform. This is the most astonishing affirmation of the desire for a fresh, bold, decisive change in this city that I have seen.
HPR: What concrete changes will you make in how the House operates? How will these changes fit into your vision of what the mentality and culture of Congress should be?
Gingrich: On the opening day of the 104th Congress, the American people will see a real and dramatic change in the way things are done on Capitol Hill. On the opening day, Republicans will cut House committee staff by one-third. We will vote on the Shays Act, which will apply to the Congress all laws that apply to the rest of the country, and we will introduce the ten bills that make up the Contract with American to be voted on within 100 days.
Additionally, we will cut the budget for the House by downsizing and consolidating work to make the House operate more efficiently. The quality movement must make its way to Capitol Hill, so we can make the best use possible of every tax dollar.
Finally, throughout the year, the American people will see a more open and honest legislative process. As opposed to the Democratic Congress, a Republican House will greatly expand the ability of members to offer amendments to bills. We are trying to build a proactive House of Representatives, and discouraging changes has only stifled the House’s ability to solve the nation’s problems.
HPR: Your effective tactics for ensuring party unity have often been labeled coercive. As Speaker, how much dissension within the GOP ranks will be compatible with effective governing? How united are Republicans philosophically, and will the nation witness a quarrel between right and moderates now that the goal of Congress has been achieved?
Gingrich: The fact that 355 Republican congressional candidates signed the Contract with America shows that the basic philosophy of the Republican party crosses a wide range of members and ideologies. My obligation as Speaker of the House is to be speaker of the whole House, reaching out to all House members. I am not speaker for the party. Instead, I have an obligation to reach across party lines and reach out to the president. I will not compromise on a tax increase, but that doesn’t mean we can’t find other things to cooperate on. We will work together to find a common ground.
HPR: Though the 1994 elections just ended, many are already looking forward to 1996. How have the unexpected results of this past election changed the entire outlook for the GOP in 1996? Who do you think will run for the Republican nomination, and what are each candidate’s relative strengths and weaknesses? How difficult will it be for the Republicans to maintain their hold on Congress and regain the White House?
Gingrich: I think we have at least a year to prove that Republican ideas can be effective. We have got to prove to the American people that we can actually do something positive—not just be the opposition party. If we can do that, then the chances of a Republican win in 1996 are improved. I won’t speculate on possible party nominees, or even on who might be running. I’ll leave that to the political columnists.
Arvind Krishnamurthy ’97, a Social Studies concentrator, is Circulation Manager of the Harvard Political Review. The written interview was conducted in early December 1994
This interview was originally featured in the Winter 1995 edition of the Harvard Political Review. January 1, 1995.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.