The former speaker’s debate skills are a major reason for his rise, the author says. Gingrich's turn: The eye of Newt

If you want to understand one big reason why former House Speaker Newt Gingrich star is rising in the Republican presidential race, you have only to look at a couple of answers from Saturday night’s South Carolina ”commander in chief” debate.

When asked by National Journal’s Major Garrett, “How would you think outside the box” on foreign policy, Gingrich answered: “I would explicitly adopt the Reagan/John Paul II/Thatcher strategy towards Iran…I would explicitly repudiate what Obama’s done on Agenda 21 as the kind of interference from the United Nations that’s wrong.”


The appeal of the first part of the answer is obvious: invoke three heroes of conservatives and suggest that the Teheran regime can be pressured into collapse.

But “Agenda 21”? I suspect I’m not the only (ostensibly) informed politics-watcher who asked: “What the hell is it? A clothing store? A real-estate company? A spy novel?”

It is, in fact. a nearly 20-year old U.N. “action plan” aimed at “sustainable development” on the local, regional and global level.

In the eyes of some on the right, however, it is — as explained on The Blaze Website — a “cloaked plan to impose the tenets of Social Justice/Socialism on the world,” which threatens everything from single-family homes to private car ownership.

In this sense, Gingrich’s answer was a “dog-whistle” — a response that held great meaning for those in the audience, signaling that he both knew their concerns, and was sympathetic.

This was no isolated incident. As Gingrich has done in just about every debate, again and again Saturday he was operating at a level of tactical and strategic skill far above his opponents. His eye for the mot juste, for the jab or counter-punch that will please his audience, is unparalleled.

Whatever his liabilities as a prospective nominee — and they are legion — Gingrich has climbed back from irrelevancy to contender because he is playing Assassin’s Creed Revelations while his opponents are playing Pong.

Consider a few other examples. After Texas Gov. Rick Perry proposed subjecting all foreign aid to sharp scrutiny, Gingrich was asked if he’d apply that approach to Egypt. It’s hard to go wrong in a GOP debate by taking a slap at foreign aid, but here’s what the former speaker said:

“Candidly, the degree to which the Arab Spring may become an anti-Christian spring, is something which bothers me a great deal…. Christians … are being persecuted under the new system, having their churches burned, having people killed. And I’d be pretty insistent that we are not going to be supportive of a regime which is explicitly hostile to religions other than Islam.”

I’m prepared to take this statement at face value — without imputing to Gingrich any political calculation. So let’s call it a happy coincidence that:

• Self-identified born-again Christians make up a significant majority of caucus-goers;

• Gingrich’s acknowledged personal misbehavior has created a potential obstacle to winning support from these voters;

• Such voters are, to put it mildly, wary of the power of Islam.

So, if looking at this answer through a political prism, you’d likely think: “Not too shabby.”

Or look at Gingrich’s answer to Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), whose question described the debt as a national security issue.

“Actually, senator,” said the ex-speaker-historian, “there are four interlocking national security problems. [debt, energy, manufacturing, and science and technology].”

In the course of his answer, he argued for “a training requirement for all unemployment compensation so nobody gets money for doing nothing.” Then pivoting to energy, he called for “opening up offshore [drilling] and taking some of the royalties “and modernize the Charleston port, which you need for jobs here.”

There may be another political figure who could combine a tough-love approach to the jobless with a pitch to votes in a key primary state, but, offhand, I can think of exactly one: Gingrich’s old partner-nemesis, Bill Clinton.

The former speaker’s debate skills are not the only reason for his rise. In a sense, he is following the same path as Sen. John McCain did four years ago after his campaign was deemed dead: retreat to higher ground; take the long view; hope that a string of prospective rivals fall by the wayside.

He has been especially blessed by the fact that so many figures who could make the “experience” argument and appeal to the party’s base—former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Perry, — either did not run or have faltered.

As surely as a Kardashian divorce follows a Kardashian marriage, this week’s “Newt Surges!” theme will likely be followed by tough reviews of his record — both personal and political.

For example, why, two years, after his rise to the speakership, were his lieutenants plotting to oust him? What about that ethics fine? Why did he become so toxic that Clinton’s reelection tried to paint him as Bob Dole’s running mate? Somewhere, someone is already resuscitating that old line about those two filing cabinets: the big one, with “Newt’s Ideas,” the much smaller one with ”Newt’s Good Ideas.”

Still, judged simply by the measure of political success, Gingrich has already wrapped up the Performer of the Year award.

Jeff Greenfield has worked as a political analyst at CBS, ABC and CNN. Greenfield now co-hosts PBS’s “Need to Know.” He worked in Robert F. Kennedy’s Senate office and was a speechwriter for him during his presidential campaign. Follow him on Twitter at @greenfield64