THE PLANK AUGUST 14, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In the latest attempt to prove that, while they might be at a nasty impasse on issues like health care, liberals and conservatives can find common ground on education policy, odd couple Newt Gingrich and Al Sharpton will be hitting the road this fall, along with Education Secretary Arne Duncan, to promote school reform. While discussing the upcoming speaking tour this morning on the "Today" show, Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House, called education "the number-one civil right of the twenty-first century" and praised President Obama for "bring[ing] together this tri-partisan group of Independents, Democrats, and Republicans."
Wait ... tri-partisan? Was a new political term just born?
Turns out that Gingrich's think tank, American Solutions, also calls itself a "tri-partisan citizens action network." So I called American Solutions to ask for the back-story on the odd descriptor. Spokesman Dan Kotman explained that the term, which he proudly claimed the organization coined, means "find[ing] ways where Republicans and Democrats and Independents can work together." But Independents, by definition, are not members of a party. (Admittedly, some scattered groups have tried to seize the "independent" mantle: America's Independent Party, the Independent American Party, Independence Party of America.) When I pointed this out, Kotman paused. "We just thought that would work. ... It's not necessarily parties; it's just the three most common types of groups out there." He was quick to note that Mike Bloomberg, another proponent of education reform who met with Obama, Gingrich, and Sharpton back in May, is an Independent.
Fair enough. But it still seems to me that in inventing "tri-partisan," Gingrich, ever scheming how he can gain a political edge, is mostly trying to one-up the oh-so-trendy notion of bipartisanship. He's an "ideas man," remember, and he wants to show that he stands for greater inclusiveness--above and beyond what even Obama, constant seeker-of-the-middle-ground, stands for. (Which is all pretty funny, if you consider Gingrich's record.)
But this novel branding project seems unlikely to stick, and not just because of the confusion about that third partisan group. On "Today," after the initial "tri-partisan" name-drop, Gingrich himself reverted to using "bipartisan."
"There will be real bipartisanship on education," he concluded. Way to stay on message.
--Seyward Darby
4 comments
Partisan, bipartisan, tripartisan, postpartisan -- humbug! Most Americans are none of these things. Rather, we're serial monopartisans. We pick a side to root for, and we root for it, until we change our minds and start rooting for another side. We don't root for ties, or for everyone to stop playing the game and put on a musical instead. We're partisans until our party hires Michael Vick and then we switch to cheering for the Cowboys. Although the metaphor fails there, since there is no conceivable evil the Eagles could commit that would cause a Philadelphian to stop rooting for them. But the larger point stands: People take a side, and they want that side to win. Not form an alliance with all other sides like a game of Chinese checkers at a Quaker spiritual retreat.
Also, Gingrich and co. make a fundamental mistake in spelling it "tri-partisan" with a hyphen. Real words don't have hyphens; everybody knows that when a word has a hyphen, the hyphen is there because you're not sure that the word is really going to last. Back in ancient times, when the average human life expectancy was "even odds of dying before dinnertime tonight," the concept that another day of life would follow the current one was an uncertain innovation, and they spelled it "to-morrow." Only with the advent of modern medicine and reliable crop surpluses did the notion of being alive the following day become common enough for the word to lose its hyphen and become "tomorrow." As a man who has a doctorate in civilization like Newt ought to know.
- rhubarbs
August 14, 2009 at 5:27pm
Besides, Rhubs, hyphenated words are so fracking *girlie-man* words.
- icarusr
August 14, 2009 at 7:09pm
In addition to Rhubarb's observation of the inherit flaws with hyphenating words, Gingrich's concept of "tri-partisan" is not compatible with his pattern of seeing slippery slopes in stirring the pot: if bringing gay marriage and doctors who preform euthanasia under protected status will lead to society's end, isn't tri-partisan involvement the inexorable slouch to octo-partisan and deci-partisan involvement, in which we bring the American Communist Party and the American Constitutionalist Party to the table? I trust that, in his eagerness to be the spokesman of his party's core, Gingrich wants to play a winning hand of cards, but this new strategy of his does not follow his philosophy about society.
- dylanposer
August 15, 2009 at 12:36pm
Of course Gingrich is "tri-partisan"...his comments over Sotomayer proved that he'll try any bit of "partisan" hackery to get his name in the headlines.
- mpartridge2
August 16, 2009 at 6:44am