The Public Intellectual

A public intellectual is a classification which carries as much ambiguity as it does influence. Rather than focusing on the precise definition of a public intellectual, it is more intriguing to analyze the particular role they play in society, and whether or not there has been a decline of their presence in recent history (as discussed in Stephen Mack’s article “The "Decline" of Public Intellectuals?”). Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, is a working example of the public intellectual’s influence on society, frequently commenting on current political debates. Despite his own turbulent political career, saturated with corruption and hypocrisy, Gingrich continues to influence public opinion through his commentary in major media and various authored books. Gingrich’s political catastrophe in the House of Representatives begs us to question whether the public intellectual should be involved in political office, or disengaged to ensure that the quality of there work is not altered for self-interested reasons. Furthermore, Gingrich’s rigid political views call to attention the dangers of the public intellectual who is completely obdurate and inflexible to alternate ideas and opinions.

First, we must look at what exactly classifies a person as a public intellectual. It seems that a person must be (a) highly educated, and (b) in the public domain in order to be considered a public intellectual. While these are both two important characteristics, it is also important that the public intellectual be influential in the opinions they express. More often than not, public intellectuals are removed from a political office, which enables them to critique various issues in a totally open-minded manner. Newt Gingrich crossed into the political realm, which definitely affected his views as a public intellectual. As Stephen Mack points out in his article “The ‘Decline’ of Public Intellectuals,” the public intellectual’s function is criticism. It is the duty of the public intellectual to stimulate public discussion and draw attention to various societal issues. But what happens when a public intellectual is completely inflexible in their views? Is it necessary for the public intellectual to entertain the idea that they might not necessarily know all the answers? In examining Newt Gingrich, it is clear that his unbending views ultimately led to his demise.

Gingrich is credited with uniting the Republican Party and ending forty years of a Democrat majority in the House of Representatives in 1994. One of the major factors helping Gingrich rise to Speaker of the House and ushering in a Republican majority was his Contract with America, which presented welfare reform, tougher crime laws, term limits, and a balanced budget law. During his time as Speaker of the House, Gingrich was involved in various scandals and became a very polarizing figure in the Republican Party, which caused him to resign in 1998. He was sanctioned for $300,000 for ethics violations tied to federal tax violations and providing false information to an ethics panel. He was also directly responsible for a federal budget shutdown in 1995, when he halted the release of funds due to a disagreement with President Clinton (many claiming due to a personal and superficial feud). Gingrich was a very loud-mouthed and opinionated politician, and his inability to adapt to changing conditions ultimately turned many of his own Republican colleagues off. Since leaving political office, Gingrich has gone on to continuously comment on current political issues with various media outlets, particularly Fox News Channel. He has worked with various political think tanks and founded a non-partisan group called American Solutions for Winning the Future, which aims to transform all levels of government. Gingrich has written many books, including Rediscovering God in America, in which he attempts to explain the necessity of the Christian religion in various aspects of American society. Despite his clear shortcomings in politics, Gingrich continues to influence public opinion.

In examining the catastrophic outcome Gingrich had in politics, the question of the role of the public intellectual must be addressed. Although Mack points out that it is the duty of the public intellectual to criticize, this can be especially dangerous when this criticism is transferred to politics. No matter what the character of the public intellectual, it is inevitable that once they become a political official, they are not able to make decisions from an impartial standpoint and will conduct their duties to favor their own agenda. As Jean Bethke Elshtain points out,

A public intellectual is not a paid publicist, not a spinner, not in the pocket of a narrowly defined purpose. It is, of course the temptation, another one, of the public intellectual to cozy up to that which he or she should be evaluating critically. I think perhaps, too many White House dinners can blunt the edge of criticism. . . .

After Gingrich became involved in politics, it changed his ability to approach issues in an intellectual manner. To truly be a public intellectual, mustn’t a person be able to see both sides of an issue objectively and not worry about how this will affect his work? Gingrich was committed to exposing former Speaker of the House Jim Wright’s suspicious financial dealings, which forced him to resign. Yet only a few years later, Gingrich had his own crooked financial dealings that were exposed. Additionally, Gingrich was one of the organizers calling for the impeachment of Clinton and criticized his extra-marital affair. Yet years later, Gingrich was involved in his own affair. It is difficult to determine whether these deceitful actions are just inherent qualities of Gingrich, or whether being involved in politics influenced some of these actions. But it is certain that serving a political role transformed Gingrich into something other than a public intellectual.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that Gingrich was notoriously known for having a very strong personality and very resolute opinions. Should a public intellectual be steadfast in their opinions? The answer to that is simple- certainly. However, there is a fine line between being firm in one’s opinions and being stubborn and unable to entertain possible alternative views. What distinguishes the public intellectual from a public commentator is the intellectual’s ability to critically think and approach various issues in an inventive manner. Obviously, public intellectuals should have strong opinions. But there needs to be a bit of permissiveness to allow for the growth of new ideas. Gingrich is a very opinionated man, and his inability to tolerate alternate ideas seriously affects his credibility as a public intellectual. When Gingrich was Speaker of the House, he had approval ratings in the single digits, as noted by the New York Observer. Gingrich’s low approval ratings would seem to suggest that perhaps the public intellectual is better off taking a back seat when it comes to getting involved in political office.

Another issue of particular interest is whether or not there has been a decline of the public intellectual in society. As John Donatich noted during a panel discussion,

…I might as well admit that I've been worried about making the slip, "the future of the public ineffectual."... It seems to me that there is a central conflict regarding American intellectual work. How does it reconcile itself with the venerable tradition of American anti-intellectualism? What does a country built on headstrong individualism and the myth of self-reliance do with its people convinced that they know best?

The anti-intellectualism that Donatich speaks of is a bit exaggerated. If this were truly a country of people convinced they knew best, then books by public intellectuals, such as Gingrich’s Rediscovering God in America, would not continuously be on best-seller lists. With the internet and the accessibility of information, public intellectuals can thrive in modern society. If anything, it could be argued that there is actually an increase in the presence of the public intellectual. Donatich makes the argument that public intellectuals such as Erikson and Freud no longer exist. But we are no longer living in the 1950’s- it is the 21^st century and technology, as well as the types of public intellectuals, has transformed to keep up with the changes. It is no longer as easy to pinpoint the exact definition of the public intellectual because it has evolved and morphed over time. But certainly, the public intellectual is still very influential, shaping our views through various books, newspapers, and television commentary.

By using Newt Gingrich to explore the definition and characteristics of the public intellectual, we see that it is really difficult to narrowly classify these individuals. Gingrich is an excellent example illustrating many reasons why public intellectuals need to remove themselves from inside the political realm. It is also important that the public intellectual leave a bit of leeway for new ideas, contrary to their own, to flourish. In a technology-driven age, it seems only rational that the public intellectual will continue to have a place in society and remain a foundation for public awareness and debate.