Newt continues his Understanding Trump and Trumpism series at The Heritage Foundation on the eve of the inauguration of President-elect Donald J. Trump.
That’s a very nice introduction. Thank you all very much. That was a little bit much. I always worry about the introductions where I start getting excited about the speaker and then I realize it’s me. But nonetheless it was a very nice introduction, I’m very grateful. It’s terrific to be back here at Heritage. I was not involved in ’73 and ’74. I first ran for Congress in ’74 in the middle of Watergate and my many friends said to me, “You can’t possible win against the dean of the Georgia delegation, as Nixon collapses.”
It turned out they were right, I got 48.5%. I came back and ran a second time in 1976 and in April of that year, still remember watching The Today Show as Jimmy Carter came from behind to win the Wisconsin primary against Mo Udall, and I realized at that point that Jimmy Carter would be the Democratic nominee and that I would have to run the best campaign of my career in order to get close enough to run a third time. I did that. I ran really hard and it was a really effective campaign.
When you’re the candidate, you’re surrounded by noise that says you’re doing all right. On election day, I was very optimistic and I went down to the Neva Lomason Library in Carrollton, Georgia. I stood in line to vote and I realized that the four people directly in front of me had come from the local nursing home to get revenge for Sherman’s March through Georgia. I thought to myself, “What are the odds that they are going to vote for Jimmy Carter as a favorite son and then split their ticket for a Yankee-born army brat with a strange name and a weird accent teaching at a local college?”
I thought, “This is going to be a very long day.” I went from 48.5, with the best campaign of my career down to 48.3. The following Saturday, I was calculating and looking at things. I got two votes in Carol County for every vote that Gerald Ford got. I just realized if you’re the challenger you can’t run much further ahead and win, so I came back a third time and finally won in ’78. One of the things that carried me through that was getting to know Ed Fulmar and being invited to lunch at the old Heritage Foundation, which was a tiny set of townhouses not far from here and we would go to lunch, I think it was like Wednesdays or something we would always meet up.
By the way, this is a sign of how big this place has become. I do not remember you ever serving hot chocolate. I mean, that’s a sign of the new prosperity that Jim DeMint has brought to Heritage, that we’ve moved up a stage, so it’s a great honor. I really came and asked them if I could give a series of speeches here for a very symbolically historic reason, and that is that Heritage was the decisive intellectual center in the Reagan administration’s bold policy changes.
Heritage made over 2,200 recommendation in a 1,093-page report called, Mandate for Leadership. It was really a remarkable achievement. I was a part of all that. I was a freshman member of Congress. I was hanging out regularly with the folks from Heritage. It really made a huge impact. Of course Heritage then, because it is truly an independent institution, two years later had the courage to grade Reagan on how he had done. They gave him a 62. Now, on the one hand, that’s not a very good grade. On the other hand, it’s the highest grade ever achieved by any President from Heritage. This is a tough institution. Deeply, deeply committed to real change.
In this transition, I can report to you Heritage is once again playing a leadership role across the whole transition process. These speeches are designed to reinforce the case for bold change. I think the speeches are also in the tradition of Heritage’s vision statement, which is to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society flourish, which I think is a pretty good statement of the concept of Making America Great Again.
I think it’s particularly important to be back here. I think that there will ultimately be a total of eight speeches at Heritage and one speech at the National Defense University, all of them will be available on the Heritage website and at Gingrich Productions, and ultimately, sometime in the spring, I will produce a book called, Understanding Trump. That book will have a very large market because nobody does. I’ll get back to that.
These speeches are an initial attempt to outline what I think are the dramatic changes brought about by the rise of President-elect Trump and Trumpism. Now, part of what I want you to understand and this is all a gamble. Okay? Trump has assembled, I think, a Cabinet of winners. One of his challenges will be to turn it into a team of winners, and that will be very challenging because these are very strong, very successful personalities.
If they come together as a team, and if they really focus on large-scale change, this will in fact be a historic opportunity. I believe it’s an opportunity to end the 84-year dominance of the left, starting with Roosevelt in 1932. Reagan didn’t end it, I didn’t end it. It has continued to be the dominant underlying force in American culture and government. We have a chance now to really do that and that’s part of what this is all about
I want to start, though by reflecting on three large ideas the day before the inaugural. First, how different this week would have been if November 8th went the other way. If you want to understand what I mean by a watershed event, over here is the old order. Over here is Trump. If you ask yourself, how would you have felt, first of all you wouldn’t be here. Right? You would be even more depressed. I think by the way that Obama was counting on her winning, because I think they thought that if they got four years on top of eight years of Obama, that they would really have driven into the culture a level of radicalism that would be virtually impossible to turn around.
That’s part of why they’re in such a paroxysm of agony because remember that up until 10:00 or 9:00 election night, they all collectively thought they were going to win. In fact, they thought they were going to win in a landslide. In fact, I’ve always wondered who was the person who had to go in and tell Hillary, you know, we’ve had this boo-boo. We don’t know quite know how to explain it but you’re not going to the White House, you’re going to Westchester. That would have been … I’d love to have had the video. The amount we could have made selling Hillary reacts to being told she’s not going to President. It would have been a wonderful moment.
I want to start with this whole point, and I have a proposition for Conservatives, which you will find … and you remember this from, we used to have these early Reagan lunches, where people who were in the Reagan administration who were hard-lined Conservatives would come to lunch at Heritage and spend the first 35 minutes complaining that Reagan was selling us out. Reagan was at that point the most Conservative president of modern times, but on Item 73-b, they had found out that it wasn’t quite what they believed in. I finally one day, Ed and I both just said to them, “Either quit being negative, or don’t come to lunch.”
I have a proposition for the entire Conservative movement. For two years, just two years, every time Trump does something you’re not quite comfortable with, close your eyes and think, President Clinton. You will find that you are so happy overall with what Trump is doing. We’ll get past the confusion and the turmoil and the difficulty. The second, though, I want to talk about the difference between the long growth and development of Reaganism and the sudden explosive emergence of Trumpism, and third, I want to talk about the reality that Trump’s opposition will be much more like that faced by Prime Minister Thatcher than that faced by President Reagan.
First of all I want to go back to this whole notion of Hillary winning because this is something Conservatives can’t come to grips with. One person saved us from Hillary Clinton. I don’t think any other Republican candidate could have beaten her. I want you to think about that. Do you really any of the others could have aroused the level of turnout that Trump aroused? You think they could have carried Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania? I don’t think there’s any evidence that any of them could have done it.
One person did it and he did it his way. I’ll come back to that, but you really have to understand, this is a guy … remember one point in mid-summer, some reporter called me. The reporters’ inability to learn any of this is just astonishing. I mean it’s like zebras who keep watching other zebras getting eaten and thinking to themselves, but why are the lions unhappy? You keep trying to explain, they’re lions, they need lunch. You’re lunch.
This reporter calls me and says, “Doesn’t it bother you that Hillary last month spent $30 million on political advertising and Trump spent like $300,000?” I said, “I don’t know, I was thinking about our nominee, Jeb Bush how it feels to spend $108 million and get one delegate.” I said, do you guys learn nothing out of the entire spring? Because the Trump model of communication is revolutionary and it’s one that all the Republican candidates, at Governor, State Legislature, you name it, should learn.
You get up in the morning and you Tweet. And then, of course, the news media goes crazy. Why does the news media go crazy? Because he is skipping past them. They hate Tweeting. Tweeting means he communicates directly with you, so of course the news media hates it. Then, he would call into Fox & Friends and they would chat cheerfully for a while and then he would call into Morning Joe and argue with him. Then about 10:00 a.m. he would do a press event, and then having set the tone for the entire day, he would wait until he did an hour of Hannity, and then he would have had during the day about $7 million or $8 million of free media and all of his opponents would go out and do fundraisers to raise the money to buy an ad to be drowned by Trump.
Plus he figured you could run any ad you wanted to attacking him and he would be on TV explaining who he was, and ultimately he’d win. By the way, one of the things this city never understood, and I’m going to come back to this, it never understood that for 13 years he’d done The Apprentice. You’d say, “Gee, why is he so good on TV?” Nobody in this city knew. This is a city of elites. It wasn’t on PBS. It didn’t follow Downton Abby. Just because millions of yahoos watched it couldn’t make it meaningful.
Trump’s a guy who understands reality TV because he understands reality. Nobody got this. It was fascinating to watch the gap I the two worlds. And these really are two worlds. I mean, there’s a world of practical, serious competent, people over here and then there’s Washington. Then it’s satellite branches in New York and Los Angeles. We should remember that one of the reasons Trump has a level of authority in addition to being President is that he is the person who stopped Hillary Clinton and he is the person who stopped the Obama revolution and nobody else could have done it and he did it without [inaudible 00:19:24].
Second, it hit me what a remarkable difference there is between the development of Reagan and the development of Trump. Ed and I both, in many ways had our early years shaped by Reaganism. The truth is, the Contract with America, simply Reagan, if you go through the contract, 95% of the contract came straight out of Reagan. We were the last great victory of Reaganism. We could do the contract because for 20 years most of us had heard Reagan give speeches, so we kind of understood what we were doing. We have not had that level of development since then. I’m going to come back to why Trump is so different.
Think about Reagan. Reagan, in 1947, as the head of the Actor’s Guild, has dinner one night with a member of the guild who explains to Reagan that he is true Stalinist and when they win, they’re either going to put Reagan in jail or shoot him. Reagan goes home and realizes this guy is really sincere. From that point on, he is unendingly anti-communist, and 44 years later the Soviet Union disappears. He has a long evolution of reading Marxism, reading about Communism, giving speeches. He’s giving active speeches and doing TV about Communism very early after that first encounter.
Then, as his movie career began to wane, he is approached by a guy named Lemuel Boulware, who was one of the great unheralded heroes of the American history. Boulware was the human relations Vice President of General Electric, which at that time had a huge blue collar workforce with seven unions, two of whom were headed by communists and the other five were headed by radicals. Boulware had given a speech at alumni day at Harvard Business School in 1949, saying that there’s a wave of Socialism and Collectivism going across the planet and if we don’t educate our works and our stockholders, we are going to cease to have free enterprise.
He developed what became back then, was actually a form called Boulwarism. I recommend everybody who wants to understand Reagan, that they read a very small book called the education of Ronald Reagan by Tom Evans, who had been in both the Nixon and Reagan White Houses as a lawyer. It’s a brilliant book. Boulware figures out he can’t negotiate with the union leaders because they’re all radicals. What he could do, he sells his CEO on educating the work force about economic reality so they won’t support a strike, so the union leaders can’t say, “Well, I’m not going to accept this, we’re just going to go on strike,” because the workers wouldn’t vote for a strike.
As he developed this very elaborate communications plan and he developed a model he called, “Moving the M.” He said, “If you have a line, wherever the majority is, the political leadership has to follow. His job was to move the majority to economic rationality and then the political leaders who were the union bosses who had to get elected, had to [audominally 00:22:49] operate within the constrain of where the majority went. Then he said, “Gee, I need somebody attractive who will interest workers in listening to him,” and Ronald Reagan was at the end of his movie career and he got a contract with General Electric.
Reagan gave 375 speeches, most of them to blue collar audiences, and most of them involving Q&A. By the time he ran for Governor, he actually had done this over and over. Interestingly, Reagan had a very bad airplane flight in 1945 and wouldn’t fly. Everywhere he went for GE, he went by train. Boulware would give him Conservative economic books to read. Here you have this potential future President, reading conservative economics, reading Hayek for example, as he went around the country to speak to blue collar audiences to personalize and make sense of free enterprise at the level of average workers. That was the background.
Reagan spent years developing his approach and his thinking. He also said to a friend of mine one time, we went to see him about a very sophisticated technology in defense, and he was so stunned, he said to Governor Reagan at that time, I’d really like to meet the person who briefed you because you are so well briefed. Reagan laughed and said, “Nobody briefed me.” He said, “On the movie sets, I didn’t play cards I read.” You had a guy who really wasn’t … if you go to the ranch you’ll realize Reagan as a genuine intellectual. He wasn’t some theoretical academic intellectual, but he was a man who believed in ideas, thought ideas mattered, learned his whole life, and in that setting, by 1964, he’s giving his first great national speech, which is for Goldwater, a time for choosing. If you’ve never seen it, it’s worth your finding it on YouTube, and that introduces Reagan to the country.
In 1965, he flies for the first time in 20 years because his brother calls him and says, a group of us want to have breakfast in San Francisco in the morning to talk about you running for governor, and Ronnie goes, “Well, you know I don’t fly and I can’t get there.” He says, “Well, you want to be governor, the plane leaves at 7:05, and he hung up. At 7:05 Reagan was on the plane because he wanted to be governor.
An interesting example very parallel to Trump and the part of great leadership. Reagan is being coached by Spencer & Roberts, who were the best political consultants in California at the time. They keep saying to him, “All that student noise at Berkeley is not an issue.” Reagan is doing Q&A sessions, town hall meetings because they’re trying to prove that Reagan is smart enough to be government because back then, if you’re an actor, you can’t really be government. They had given him this box full of issues to learn and as an actor, he could learn stuff very fast.
He’d go into these town hall meetings, the first, second and third question were about Berkeley. He’d come after the meeting, he’d say to his consultants, guys, we really have to develop some answers about Berkeley. They say “No, no, Berkeley is not an issue,” because in the elites, Berkeley is not an issue. About the third time this happened, Reagan said, ” Berkeley may not be an issue to you, but it’s an issue to the people of California. It’s very similar to how Trump dealt with this whole process, which is the consultants are obsolete, they’re out of touch, they’re talking to themselves. I think I’ll just go over there and win. Trump was his own primary consultant, which saved him a huge amount of money and a great deal of failure.
Reagan then governs for eight years, which is pretty good practice, the largest state in the country, and in ’75 and ’76, he wages a national campaign for President in which he draws clear distinction between the establishment Republicans who are for Ford and what Regains is all about. By 1980, he has a very formed general ideology the final piece of which is supply-side economics, which Jack Kemp helps bring to him. In that process, you have a guy now, who from 1947 to 1980 has been evolving. That’s the framework within which Reganism existed.
By contrast, Trump’s totally different. I recommend all of you read, The Art of the Deal and the Art of the Comeback, which are really both personal books, and business books. They’re not political books, but they give you a sense of how he operates. What you have is a guy who is very famous very early. By 1980 … In late ’80s, The Art of the Deal is a number one New York Times best seller, it’s on the best seller list for about a year. He’s emerging as a constant celebrity in New York media. Oprah Winfrey in 1988, on her TV show, “Are you going to run for president?” He says, “Not unless the country gets to be a total mess, which we managed to achieve the goal so then he could have a good reason to run. In 1989, February of ’89, he’s the cover of Time Magazine.
He emerges as a celebrity and an entrepreneur and as a very successful business person, but not as a political person. He has lots of opinions, but he doesn’t have policies because he’s just a guy who makes a lot of money and does a lot of cool things and hangs out, like on TV or with a tie. I mean, he invents Trump ties, he takes over the Ms. Universe. He’s very busy because he’s … to understand Trump, you just have to take … he’s 1/3 Andrew Jackson for disruption, 1/3 Theodore Roosevelt for compulsive energy and 1/3 P.T. Barnum for permanent salesmanship. If you put those together you begin to get the Trump method and the Trump pattern.
If you look at all that, there are two specific reading assignments to understand why the elites did not understand Trump. The first is a very sobering book by Charley Murray. Murray had written the best back, I think on welfare reform called losing ground, in the 1980s, which we used very intensely and we did work very closely with [Hereties 00:29:03] in designing welfare reform. Murray, two years ago, wrote a book called, Coming Apart, which is about white America. His core thesis is that for the first time in American history there are super zip codes, what you call super zips.
The super zip code is where people are in the top 5% of income and the top 5% of education. He said what’s beginning to happen is, people who go to Princeton, Yale, and Harvard, marry people who go to Princeton, Yale, and Harvard. They then put their kids in prep schools so the can get into Princeton, Yale, and Harvard and they now live in the same neighborhood with everybody else who went to Princeton, Yale, and Harvard and he has a map of super zip codes. He says the number one reality of these people is they know nothing about normal Americans, which is why they didn’t understand The Apprentice because it literally was outside their comprehension.
This is why … normal Americans talk in a different language than elites talk. Trump, who talks … Trump’s campaign speeches are at the fourth-grade level. Not because he’s stupid because he understands that if you talk at the fourth-grade level, over 90% of the country understands you. Hillary talked in the language of somebody who went to an elite school, which guaranteed that on most days, 80% of the country did not resonate to what she was saying. Fundamentally different models. But she felt so good … this is a big advantage over Obama. Obama felt like the college professor you wanted to have. Everybody who had ever been to school thought, “Isn’t this wonderful?” But, everybody else thought, “This is weird.” The longer it went on the weirder it got. These kind of models are very, very powerful.
To me, the essence of this was captured in a very short essay, you can look up, you can Google called, Intellectual, Yet Idiot, or IYI, by Nassim Taleb, who wrote The Black Swan. His thesis is very simple, that at least 40% of the governing elite is made up of people who are very good at taking exams and writing essays. So, they get into elite schools, where they study under professors who are very good at taking exams and writing essays.
Because they’re very good at taking exams and writing essays, they get very good grades, so they then get to the New York Times or the Supreme Court, or senior federal bureaucracy, or TV and they sound really good because they’re really good at being articulate. Their only weakness is they don’t know anything. They could write an essay on how to change a tire, but if you showed up and said, by the way, my car has a flat, they would have no clue and they would wonder why you wanted them to do something practical. Whereas if you’d like them to write on the theory of tire changing, they could do an entire volume.
I think this explains a great deal of what was going on. I’ll give you the most recent example. The absolute absurdity of the intelligence community of the United States having known for months, and I think, somebody can correct me if I’m wrong, I think John McCain said he first told them in December of last year, that there was an opposition report in which a retired British agent, for money, wrote that Trump may have had a relationship with the Russians because of a meeting between a specific person and a Russian in Prague. This is a fairly specific validateable message. In terms of the Intellectual Yet Idiot, because I’m a historian and I spend a large of my career actually looking at facts. I’m not a political scientist or an economist. I don’t believe in any system which has lines because lines imply a patterning that humans don’t actually live in.
As a historian, I actually like facts. Where was Gettysburg? Did the Union and Confederate army fight at Gettysburg? What days did they fight? When did the rain start? This is the way you train, which means you spend a lot of your time trying to do research. If I had encountered a suggestion that a specific named person had been in Prague on a specific named date meeting with Russians, and I’d been the head of the CIA or the Director of National Intelligence, I would have said to a very junior person, maybe an intern, “Would you call this person and ask if they’ve ever been in Prague.” Now I know this is bold, I mean we’re out at the cutting edge here of actually doing something. You’ll notice I want to delegate it to the lowest person possible because they may still have the habit of doing something. They may not yet have learned that doing nothing but writing well is really more important to being promoted than actually doing something.
The person in question, turns out to never have been in the Czech Republic. I would then pose as somebody who studied history and geography. I once taught geography for a while. If you haven’t been in the Czech Republic, you can’t have been in Prague. I mean I don’t want to go too fast here. These are big ideas. But, here’s what bothers me frankly about the Republicans in the Congress. I have yet to hear either of the intelligence committees say, “What we ought to be investigating of the utter total incompetence of an entire intelligence system in which nobody thought to check with the person and to find out whether or not it was true.
It’s bad enough that they leaked it. It’s worse that they didn’t have any clue how stupid it was. That’s why when I was asked the other day by some reporter, shouldn’t Trump work to get along with the intelligence community? He should tell Dan Coates, the new Director of National Intelligence, “I want you to overhaul the entire system until we actually get people in charge who can do real work, who can actually think and who can look for facts.” This is how sick the whole system.
It’s equally bad at the Veterans Administration, it’s equally bad in the Pentagon. This concept of Intellectual Yet Idiot, is very important to understand how much the system has eroded. We now have people who have pseudo education. They got a pseudo Ph.D or a pseudo or a Masters Degree. But we now value the degree, so we say, wow, so-and-so got a degree from Harvard and a degree from MIT. My question is, “Can they do anything?” I mean I don’t care where their degrees are from, I only care whether or not they know anything.
This is a very core crisis of the system and it will be very interesting to see to what degree the people Trump has assembled as a general principal, are people who actually get things done. They measure achievement, not credentials. It will be interesting to see if they can in fact build a team that can continue to do that despite the weight of the city and the weight of the news media.
Let me now carry you to the last part, which is … let me say in passing. Trump is a work in progress. I tell everybody I cannot tell you what Trump is going to do tomorrow. Not tomorrow. Tomorrow he’s going to go give an inaugural speech, but if you were to say to me, “What’s he’s going to … ” In fact I said this on Fox & Friends this morning and I looked blank. What’s he going to do Saturday? I can’t tell you. Because he can’t tell you.
I want you to think of Trump as a table. The table has four legs. One leg is anti-politically correct. One leg is anti-left. One leg is anti-stupidity and one leg is passionately pro-American. Trump migrates across the table based on opportunity and threat. He is so fast and moves so quickly that we have no models. I mean, maybe Andrew Jackson, but that was a long time ago and a different framework. We have no modern models for Chief Executive who does this.
He’s going to assemble a team, delegate to the team and then he’s going to migrate back and forth wherever he wants to within this framework. I tell Conservatives, he is not a ideological traditional conservative, but he may be the most effective anti-left political leader of the last hundred years. You need to understand, “Just relax, he’ll do something.” We don’t have to be able to predict it. We just have to watch and try to help him learn as he goes through this extraordinary process.
The third point I’m going to make is … this only bubbled up as I watched the last three weeks. The sixty members who aren’t going to show up or whatever it is tomorrow, which I think is fine. If you want to allow us to know exactly how hostile you are from day one, I think that’s useful. It allows you to not worry about them, just run over them on a regular basis. You don’t have to pretend you’re going to get their votes, you don’t have to worry them, and most of them are in very, very safe seats. This is what happened to the British Labor Party under Thatcher. What they do, they pull their party to the left, it gets nuttier and nuttier. The average person goes, “That’s really weird.” But they’re based on all cheers and chants, “Weirdness is good, weirdness is good,” which is a strange way to build a party.
I think the fact is … I tried to figure out. The news media has learned nothing and gotten even more terrified. The left is getting more and more excited. It hit me that we have no American parallel, but the Thatcher did. The difference is very simple. Thatcher was a direct threat to both the value system and the power structure of the left in Great Britain. Reagan wasn’t. Reagan’s goal was to defeat the Soviet Empire and within the context of the traditional system to accelerate economic growth and rebuild a belief in America and American history. But he didn’t spend a lot of time, even when he was governor, he didn’t spend a lot of time to dramatically reshape the Berkeley faculty or to take on the core value system of the left. As long as he was winning, he didn’t care. If he could just defeat the Soviet Empire, regrow the economy, he’d done what he set out to do.
Trump is a direct mortal threat to both the value system of the left because he’s so politically incorrect and to the power structure of the left. The Trump system cannot be made to work unless they reform the civil service. Reforming the civil service will be life and death to the bureaucratic unions. The Trump system doesn’t work as long as our children are being taught idiocy by tenured professors who make no sense, which is why you’re starting to see in some states, we now have 25 states that have Republican control of the House, Senate, and Governor. I think probably the largest number in history. What you’re beginning to have in a couple of states is they’re taking away tenure. All of a sudden, the left is going, “But you can’t take away tenure, because we have to have freedom of speech,” which means of course freedom of coercion because their idea of freedom of speech is their speech not anybody else’s.
This is going to be a real collision. We have to recognize … There’s a great book I recommend to all of you by Claire Berlinski, entitled, There Is No Alternative, and the subtitle is: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters. Her point is Thatcher did two things. She directly morally assaulted the intellectual framework of the left. There is a great moment when she first becomes opposition leader and she’s speaking at the Conservative Party conference and she had this huge handbag. She says, “People ask me, ‘What is our platform?'” She takes up Hayek’s, I think what? The Constitution of Liberty. It’s a big book. She has this big book in her … She slams it. She says “I’ll tell you what our platform is. It Hayek. Of course 2/3rds of the Tory members are going, “Who’s Hayek? What does this mean? Why is she yelling at me? I don’t know.” But, her famous line, the problem with socialism is you run out of other people’s money to spend.
You go back and read her speeches, and Berlinski does a good job of pulling these together, she’s a novelist normally, but she got fascinated with … she had been anti-Thatcher when she was young student at Oxford, and then over the years, she decided Thatcher was right and she was wrong. She has a whole series of Thatcher just assailing socialism, which is exactly what Trump should do. What Trump did the other day to John Lewis is exactly right.
I used to represent Atlanta. I used to represent part of Lewis’s district. Atlanta has rising crime, the schools are failing to teach poor children, I mean, it’s not as bad as Chicago, but it’s got lots of things that aren’t working and the political power structure of the left can’t allow anything to be fixed. I talked to Rudy Giuliani yesterday about the impact he had with CompStat in New York. He said, “We basically got crime under control in 18 months.” Nobody from Chicago would contemplate bringing in Giuliani because after all, what are 4,000 being shot, as long as they’re on the south side? 4,000 people last year were shot in Chicago, which turns out to be third. St. Louis, Baltimore, Chicago, per capita.
Yet we have no … The very people who should be saying, as Trump said in Charlotte, he wants to have a New Deal for African-Americans. You would think the people like John Lewis would say, “Gosh, what do you have in mind?” But they can’t because they’re more left than they are representing their constituencies. This is going to be very much like Thatcher. The second thing was Thatcher was confronted by the power of the coal miner’s union. She spends year laying the base for what is in effect a civil war because the coal miner’s union believes it can starve Britain out, it can cut off all production of coal and it can cripple the economy and that they will have to give in.
This is the PATCO strike on a giant scale. She says. “Look, we are not …” she saw herself in Churchill Ian terms.? Either the elected officials of the British people are in charge and Parliament the minor’s union is in charge but there’s no middle ground ever. And so they had a heads-on fight. I guarantee you, if the Trump teams decides they’re going to get control of the Federal bureaucracy it will be comparable to the fight with the Coal miners Union. Remember that when Scott walker did it on a smaller scale in Madison, they had 100,000 people in the street. The Capitol was occupied for six months and both Scott and his wife had death threats. These people are playing for keeps. The want to own this country, they want to run this country and they want to turn it into a left-wing country. The more Trump is direct in changing that, the more dramatic it will be.
What can we do? A couple of things: 1. Be noisily supportive. Use social media, Twitter, Facebook, email. 2. Every time the news media does something wrong, scream at them. Just pound on them. Don’t pretend that we should pay attention to them in a positive way and say, “Oh, gee yeah we really feel bad that that happened.” 3. Talk to your Senators and your Congressmen. Even while you’re up here, if you go by just see them, “I’m really counting on you to work with Trump.” It’s very important that the pressure be toward Trump, not away. Particularly on our side. Not away from Trump and the people not be confused.
4. Help defeat the ant-Trump Democrats in 2018 and start by putting pressure on this year. We can find every state in which there’s a Democratic Senator up that Trump carried and we can start building this spring grass roots efforts to say to those people, you either vote with us in the senate, or we’re going to beat you back home. It’s your call you decide whether you’d like us to mare sure you don’t come back or you’d like to come back by voting with us. We’ll take success either way.
In addition, I think we have an opportunity. I’m trying to work with the Trump team to set up crowd-sourcing regulatory reform. Imagine that every school board, every city council, every small business, every hospital, every university was asked, “What are the dumbest, worst regulations that we should repeal and we began to bubble up from the country regulatory reform. It’s a project I think Heretes is going to do that you’ll have a real opportunity here to make a real difference in history. Help your local State Legislators, City Council, County Commission, School Board developed Trumpism in your state. Encourage your Governor to work that way. We need for example, a Governors’ working group on regular reform. We need a Governor’s working group on Medicaid. These are things where we really can begin to build a momentum.
Finally, in honor of Jim DeMint and Ed Fulmer, and a lifetime of working with these guys, keep supporting Heritage in developing key issues. Heritage is a very important part of the building block of the change that we’re trying to achieve. I hope this is useful. I apologize that I’ve got to go, actually make another speech. I cannot tell you how helpful working with Heritage in this project has been. How much I look forward to the next two weeks. We’re going to continue the series and I hope you’ll find Understand Trump this spring to be useful as sort of a core guide.
All those speeches are now available at the Heritage website, so you can see it there. I think we are gathered together for a truly historic inaugural. I think we have chance to work with the new President and the new Vice President to truly achieve remarkable things and I am very, very grateful for Heritage for allowing me to be a part of that process. Thank you all very, very much.
Understanding Trump and Trumpism Part 4: On the Eve of the Inaugural
- on January 26, 2017
Newt continues his Understanding Trump and Trumpism series at The Heritage Foundation on the eve of the inauguration of President-elect Donald J. Trump.