I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican
I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around a campfire but are lousy in politics.
When Newt Gingrich declared, “I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around a campfire but are lousy in politics,” he revealed a truth as sharp as a sword: that the realm of politics is not the realm of innocence. It is a battlefield where courtesy is weakness, and where victory often belongs not to the pure of heart but to the cunning and the fierce.
His words pierce with irony. For virtues like being neat, obedient, loyal, and faithful are indeed noble in private life, the very foundations of character and harmony. They shine brightly in the home, in friendship, and in the simple fellowship of the people—like stars guiding the wayfarer at night. Yet in the contests of politics, Gingrich warns, such virtues alone may leave one defenseless, for politics is a storm where the ruthless prevail, and the gentle are swept aside.
History bears grim witness to this. In the Roman Republic, Cato the Younger was famed for his incorruptible virtue. He was steadfast, honest, and utterly loyal to principle. Yet when confronted by Caesar, a man unafraid of nastiness, deception, and ambition, Cato’s purity became powerless. The Republic fell, not because it lacked men of virtue, but because it lacked those willing to match cunning with cunning in the arena of power.
Thus Gingrich’s lament is not an exaltation of cruelty, but a recognition of reality. To fight in politics with only the spirit of the Boy Scout is to enter war armed with kindness while others wield iron. He reminds us that the preservation of ideals may at times require a harder edge, a readiness to confront ruthlessness with strength, lest noble causes be crushed beneath the boots of those without scruple.
Let this lesson be carried forward: in the house of friendship, cultivate loyalty; in the heart, keep faith; around the campfire, embrace obedience and neatness. But in the halls of power, do not be naïve. For there, the wolves roam, and to protect what is just and good, one must sometimes fight with the ferocity of those who would destroy it. The wisdom of the ancients endures: virtue without strength is fragile, but virtue armed with courage and strategy endures the ages.
NLHoang Ngoc Ly
Newt Gingrich’s perspective on the Republican Party’s approach seems to value boldness over decorum, but how much ‘nastiness’ is too much? Can aggressive tactics in politics truly lead to progress, or does it just create more tension? Should we rethink the idea that being polite and loyal is a weakness in politics, and instead view it as a strength? How can we cultivate a more productive political environment that balances passion with professionalism?
ANAnh Nam
I understand Newt Gingrich’s criticism of the ‘Boy Scout’ mentality in politics, but does this mentality always lead to ineffectiveness? Could there be a way to be loyal and respectful while also being strong and firm? Shouldn’t politics encourage respect for differing opinions rather than fueling division? How do we strike the right balance between being principled and strategic in the political world, without veering into negativity or hostility?
HDPhuc Huy Doan
Newt Gingrich seems to suggest that being ‘nice’ in politics is a disadvantage. But is that really true? Sure, politics can be rough, but can’t we have effective political debate without resorting to nastiness? Are we so conditioned by the current political climate to expect aggression as a form of strength? How do we change the narrative to value civility while still being firm and effective in addressing issues?
TTTu Trinh
Gingrich's point about the Republican Party encouraging neatness over aggressiveness in politics is certainly provocative. But does this mean that politics needs to be ruthless to be effective, or could we work toward a more respectful form of competition? Is there room in politics for people to be principled, yet firm in their beliefs without resorting to ‘nastiness’? Would that approach really lead to better results, or would it just be ineffective?
NCNam Co
I get what Newt Gingrich is saying about the Republican Party’s approach, but do we really need ‘nastiness’ in politics to be effective? Isn’t the problem with politics more about the lack of integrity and transparency, rather than too much politeness? While it’s important to be strategic, shouldn’t we be careful not to promote a toxic environment where winning means sacrificing values and respect for others?