Placing his simple breakfast (a banana and an unbuttered bagel) on an end table in his Capitol Hill office, Newt Gingrich sat down with half a dozen TIME editors and correspondents early last Wednesday morning. During the ensuing 90 minutes, Gingrich reviewed his accomplishments and setbacks during his first year as Speaker and outlined where he hoped to take his revolution in 1996. Excerpts:
TIME: How do you think you fared this year?
Gingrich: First of all, we kept our word, and I think that changes the underlying dynamic of politics in terms of promises made, promises kept in the Contract with America. We're trying to actually have an adult conversation with the American people instead of a 30-second pandering.
Second, I think that we have changed the whole debate in American politics. There is now a universal agreement you've got to balance the budget. The argument is over exactly how much, exactly when. There is no one thinking to raise taxes. The Clinton '93 tax increase would now be unthinkable in this environment.
TIME: Even to him.
Gingrich: Yes. It would be thinkable if they won the election in '96, and I think if there was a Democratic majority in Congress, they would raise taxes in '97. But in this context he can't say it.
I think our biggest weaknesses are communications and organization of communications resources, and there are a couple of areas where we overreached our management ability and we got into some things we couldn't deal with very well.
TIME: Such as?
Gingrich: There is this false issue, which it's taken me at least all year to fully understand: in modern America, compassion equals bureaucracy. If you're not for bureaucracy, you're not for compassion. I thought we were off to a good start with it last spring, but I think now it has to be a much bigger effort to really have the whole party move in that direction.
In January we will have to go through the process of saying, Look, the one thing we do know is that bureaucracy is not compassionate, that bureaucracy has not worked, that bureaucracy has not delivered.
TIME: It seems to me that some level of the debate has been between people who believe that you have finite resources and how are we going to divide the pie, and people who believe that the way to ameliorate poverty is to create wealth and that you can create models for more dynamic growth. If that's correct, then would Patrick Buchanan fit in the opponents' camp, or would he fit in your camp?
Gingrich: I don't know. I don't want to read anything into what Buchanan has said. What I can tell you is, I think your description of the debate is only a partial statement. First of all, the core problem is culture, it's not redistributionism; second, that decentralized charities that have a sense of spirit and passion are vital; third, that bureaucracies that are anonymous are devastating; fourth, that you have to have incentives at the micro level for individuals; and that fifth, you want to maximize the creation of wealth and the acquisition of wealth rather than the redistribution of wealth. You want to emphasize the opportunity inherent in every person, rather than their victimization, because victimization leads to passivity, to grievance and to helplessness and is exactly the wrong psychology if you're poor.