If you drew up a list of history’s staunchly partisan Republicans, Newt Gingrich would likely rank near the top.
A former GOP House speaker and occasional presidential candidate, Gingrich crafted his reputation as an ideological bomb thrower. He rose to prominence with his aggressive brand of conservatism and suffered at the hands of his own arrogance.
But here’s what the strident Gingrich had to say a few weeks ago about his party’s stance on President Obama’s health reform initiatives. Gingrich chastised his fellow Republicans for having “zero” options to the president’s package.
He indicated that opposition to Obamacare is a dead-end because Republicans have no plans other than repeated — and pointless — House votes to repeal it.
Although he referred to Obama’s presidency as a “disaster,” Gingrich found failure in the GOP’s response, which he dismissed as little more than “anti-Obama.” Instead, he argued, “we have to re-convince people you can have hope in America, that we can have a better future.”
The notion of cooperating to solve problems is hardly new. In fact, it’s a bedrock principle of representative government. Individuals working for different people and different interests come together and forge agreements for the common good. The final results may be imperfect, but they take various perspectives into account.
That didn’t happen with Obamacare because early on Republicans opted for a plan to just say no. They scored political gains with flat-out opposition and haven’t shifted.
Interestingly, former President Bill Clinton showed up in his home state of Arkansas last week to discuss health care reform. He sought to defend and explain it, contending that it provides better options for the American people that the old system.
However, Clinton acknowledged the package is less than perfect, citing the inability of some Americans to obtain subsidized coverage through the health insurance of employed spouses.