BY: B. Keith Plunkett
I’ve remained relatively quiet regarding the Presidential Primary that Mississippi now finds itself in the middle of. Many would say my silence is uncharacteristic. They would be right. It’s not like me to sit out a good political battle. I’ll do my part tonight by putting out signs and covering the logistics that many of us do prior to an election.
I’ve been focused on a few other challenges. I’ve been researching some state political issues for upcoming projects, and I also have a new role directing development for a non-profit. Those two things are in addition to the calls I receive from time to time to help consult on communication issues.
At any rate, with the exception of a few Facebook posts several weeks ago, and a couple of radio interviews to do debate post-op, I’ve been mum.
But, today I’m speaking up. I’ve always said that if something is worth doing, then it is worth doing all the way. So, I’ll let it be known that I’m voting for Newt Gingrich.
If you’ve read anything I’ve written for any length of time then you know that I think the electability argument is absolutely ridiculous, and usually reserved for those who feel the heat of a challenge. I understand the independent middle determines the outcome, and there are those of us who wouldn’t vote for another term for Barack Obama if someone had a gun to our head. That being the case we should vote for who is polling well against him, right?
To borrow a phrase from my friend Andy Taggart, horse apples!
That’s why we find ourselves at the point in this country we are at now. We–candidates included–attempt to play games and position ourselves properly instead of communicating true feelings and intent. That’s how someone like Mitt Romney who is only slightly more conservative than the current occupant of the White House, and who has a boatload of money to convince you otherwise, can be leading in the current race.
Then there’s that tired old argument that “the polling shows in a head to head race with President Obama”. . . Sorry, I’m not buying it. Such polling takes the pulse of the electorate NOW, not then, and it doesn’t speak to the type of campaign candidates will be communicating in a general election.
Speaking of communicating–since that is what I generally write about–let me tell you why I’m voting for Newt.
Not in a very long time have we had someone running for the highest office who is willing or able to translate their passions into a message like Newt does. You have to go all the way back to Reagan, the great communicator. In retrospect-and there is plenty-Reagan may not have had a firm grasp on the details. But he always had a firm grasp on the reasons for making a particular move. Once he decided which route to take, he did what any great leader does: delegate, communicate and inspire.
Gingrich, while very gifted at communicating, is also incredibly intelligent. With 40 years of public service behind him, he has a wealth of institutional knowledge to draw upon. He’s been through the thick and thin of it, understands clearly the historical lessons, the geographic and cultural concerns, and he can certainly deal with the pressures of the most powerful position on earth.
No other candidate currently in the race, including the current President, deals with all of those factors as well as Newt.
Romney, when under pressure has shown to be a fair weather conservative (see abortion and Romneycare). Apparently, his record shows there have been quite a few things that he was for, before being against. There is nothing wrong with that unless, as in Romney’s case, the issues happen to be some of the cornerstones of conservative Republican thought. That’s a problem.
I’ve often said a good leader is someone who can communicate the common good. But, it’s hard to communicate the common good if your communicating based on what you think people want to hear. Good leaders communicate from a position of strength. Newt, for all his flaws, isn’t scared to mix it up and defend real ideas, not just rhetoric.
Romney has been somewhat gaffe prone. He seems to have gotten a handle on that, but my guess is it is because he is being handled, propped up, and promoted. He looks as presidential as his dollars allow. The tweets coming from the Ag Museum in Jackson during Romney’s visit clearly show his handlers need to place him in the best possible light; the stage setup in the round, the tractors placed nearby so as to be in the shot, and then the promoters being sure the shot’s were framed to their liking. If I want to see a stage show I’ll go to the theater.
Santorum is simply a poor communicator. He wants to be President, but why? He hasn’t articulated a clear and concise message. He hasn’t shown us his fight. Like Romney, his passion seems lacking. But, unlike Romney, he lacks the money to present himself as ready for primetime. Where is the inspiration? With Romney, his talking-points-laden-message falls flat in the face of all the production. With Santorum, it just falls flat.
Gingrich has shown he knows how to communicate his vision. Romney’s vision is apparently up for bid, and Santorum’s isn’t distinguishable.
Looking back at the debates, it is clear that Gingrich is on his game when fighting from behind. That bodes well for him in upcoming races in the South, and with a super delegate count in Texas up for grabs. It also bodes well should he actually become President because the challenges will be many.
While Romney and Santorum have attempted to produce the perfect family persona, the truth is that finding the perfect person who hasn’t had struggles in their life is an impossible task. I want a leader who has experienced life. I don’t think the fact that Gingrich’s personal history is a bit of a mess shows anything except that he is real.
The debates showed that Gingrich can speak one or two sentences that grabs the publics imagination, communicates a clear message, and shows he is a passionate leader that inspires. That is “Reaganesque” in its application, and it is the sign of a great communicator–one worthy of my vote.
