Democrats Skating On Thin Ice

David Bonior’s crusade against Newt Gingrich has battered the speaker and splintered Republicans. Yet, few people realize it threatens to inflict even heavier damage on Democrats. If Bonior topples Gingrich, he also could bring down one of his party’s pillars - non-profit foundations that lobby under the guise of “education.”

When you plow through the complicated tax law, the case against Gingrich boils down to an accusation not just that he misled the ethics committee but that he fibbed about something important. That something, according to Bonior and Co., is that Gingrich’s 1994-95 college course, “Renewing American Civilization,” was no mere intellectual exercise. It was, they say, an act of raw politics.

In a sense, this is true. Ideas have fueled the Republican renaissance, and Gingrich respects the power of ideas more than any other member of his party.

Moreover, Gingrich thinks his own ideas can transform American society. His grandiose sense of mission led him to organize a college course and raise money to broadcast it nationwide via satellite. It also inspired his political action committee, GOPAC, to lavish lecture tapes upon contributors, party activists, reporters and anybody else they could think of.

Even though Gingrich believed his vision would help Republicans and hurt Democrats, his course avoided partisan posturing. In fact, it praised such Democrats as Max Cleland, now a Democratic senator from Georgia, and Rep. John Lewis, another Peach State Democrat, who regularly trashes the speaker.

This leaves Bonior in a quandary. Since Gingrich didn’t solicit support for the GOP, then he is guilty of violating the law only if it is illegal to use tax-exempt organizations to promote thoughts that have political ramifications. In other words, the Bonior complaint asks the committee to grant itself the power to regulate intellectual discourse.

This is a central tenet of political correctness, which uses raw force to quell opposing views. The Bonior request also fits into a broader scheme of Democratic activity in recent months. The Clinton administration not only has asked courts to overthrow an anti-quota proposition passed by voters in California - it also has found innovative ways to harass gadflies.

James Carville’s recent attack on independent counsel Kenneth Starr provides a perfect example. Carville says Starr can’t conduct a fair investigation because the prosecutor disagrees with the president on issues wholly unrelated to the Whitewater inquiry.

In other words, ideology not only disqualifies the man - it brands him a cur. Bonior takes the same view of Gingrich. Democrats dislike not only the speaker’s mind but his personality.

They know Gingrich remains a dangerous man, even though his disapproval ratings rival only those of Saddam Hussein. That’s because the man has the power to entrance audiences.

When Gingrich utters a declarative sentence, for instance, he often uses the intonation normally reserved for questions - the pitch curling upward. This rhetorical device gives listeners the impression he wants their approval. It flatters them with the sense that they somehow are responsible for guiding and validating his intellectual journey.

Gingrich also has the prophet’s gift of being able to talk in such a way that his sounds make more sense than his words. Audiences find themselves swept along by the promise of a world transformed and redeemed by the Gingrich vision. They can’t quite follow his intellectual trail, but that doesn’t matter: He speaks with such confidence and conviction that they feel responsible for any confusion - and feel sure they will catch up with him when they do their homework.

This talent accounts for Gingrich’s stunning success on the hustings. He personally raised more than $115 million for Republican causes and candidates last year - making him worth 30 or more John Huangs. Bonior and others have good reasons to silence such a man.

Now, suppose the ethics committee found Gingrich guilty of partisan lobbying, even though he advocated no Republican cause. Such a ruling would ruin not just the speaker but the entire Washington-based industry in non-profit influence-peddling.

Nearly 600 outfits in the District of Columbia engage in tax-exempt, policy-related advocacy. The roster ranges from AARP, Greenpeace and the NAACP on the left to the Heritage Foundation and the National Taxpayers Union on the right. The majority of the groups, in raw numbers and funding, support Democrats - and they all disseminate ideas that have obvious political import.

If the speaker goes, so will many of the 600 - including much of Washington’s liberal Establishment. This prospect has many leftish organizers in the capital biting their nails and doing something they once would have thought absurd: wishing Newt a safe, happy and prosperous new year.

xxxx