(7 of 10)
Congressmen from both parties predict that Gingrich will succeed in imposing his will on the House, where the rules allow a disciplined majority to have its way. But the Senate is another matter. There, on several issues dear to Gingrich -- including term limits and the balanced-budget amendment -- several Republican Senators could well join the opposition. Gingrich retorts that he is prepared for that fight, that if a minority of Senate Democrats tries to block legislation favored by majorities in the House and Senate, he stands ready to take his case to the public. The Democrats, Gingrich told his advisers, "had better break us in the next six months, because if we're still standing in July, the country is going to believe."
In this contest Gingrich enjoys what the political philosopher Machiavelli described as the greatest advantage in politics or war: to be underestimated by the enemy. The White House, Democratic lawmakers, even some of Gingrich's numerous detractors among Republicans are united in the faith and hope that he will self-destruct in short order. A White House official suggests that waiting him out is the answer, because Gingrich is "a sprinter" poorly suited to the marathon of major-league politics. That is a misreading that Gingrich's adversaries have made over and over again. "It would be an error to devise a strategy built around Gingrich making mistakes," says Howard Paster, who was the top lobbyist for Clinton on the Hill during the first year of his presidency. "((Gingrich)) has to be engaged. He has to be dealt with."
In fact, any examination of Gingrich's setback-studded career shows that he has risen to where he is through stamina, a willingness to take outrageous risks and -- most important -- a ruthless and slavish devotion to his vision. "There is a certain brilliance factor, an ability to make your own luck," says a veteran Democratic House aide with grudging admiration. "Newt has it. None of our guys do."
Yet after riding to power on a populist appeal, Gingrich faces another pitfall in putting forward a program that will benefit upper-income Americans more than anyone else. Says Representative Frank: "He's not for smaller government. He's for different government. He's for government that serves a different set of interests." The White House pushed that hot button last week when Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, said her department estimated that 5 million children would lose their welfare benefits under the House G.O.P. plan known as the personal-responsibility act. Republican House members quickly pointed out that while children would indeed be cut off, the plan would be phased in over five years. The G.O.P.'s Bill Archer accused Shalala of using "scare numbers."
The fireworks have only just begun. The balanced-budget amendment, for instance, would certainly bring about massive cuts in programs like Medicaid and Medicare that benefit the poor and middle class, but in its current form it would protect many of the tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy. And though Republicans have made much of their plans for a "middle-class" tax cut, the Treasury Department estimates that a $50,000-income household would find taxes taking a 1.4% smaller bite of their income, while taxes for those earning more than $200,000 would fall by twice that.