Vander Jagt: There absolutely was. He came not necessarily as a bomb thrower, but as a dreamer. He was the only member other than myself that really believed that it was possible to build a Republican majority. He was sort of this Don Quixote, the impossible dream. And he believed that as he arrived, and he never stopped working for it with drive and enthusiasm. Because of that in December of '78, before he was sworn in as a member, I named him the Chairman of the long range Republican Task Force to create a Republican Majority, skipping him over sitting members, most of whom would have liked the job because staff and budget went with it.

But he brought that dream. He didn't come just to be a member of the House and be another politician. He came for the purpose of changing America. Renewing America by creating a Republican Majority in the House.

Q: What was it about Gingrich's ideals --that possibility-- that struck you as being not only bold, but realistic?

Vander Jagt: Number one, he was brilliant. The sweep of his intellect, I don't believe has been matched in the last half century among politicians. A tremendous historical foundation. But maybe even more important than that was his persistence. His belief in that dream. And if you drove hard enough and worked hard enough, you could make it come true. And in those early days he'd be laughed at by the old bulls for these quixotic ideas. I mean this guy actually believes Republicans can be a majority. And he always come up with another crazy idea.

But no matter how much he was laughed at or knocked down, he'd get up off the mat and start all over again. And in a sense, I was on my way to becoming an old bull by then and I think I provided him some respectability. I gave him some cover, that here was one of the leadership who believed in this guy and believed in his dream.

Q: Describe to me the effect on the old bulls of a guy like Newt.

Vander Jagt: Well, Newt made the old bulls nervous. He made them uncomfortable. He was for change and change is always an uncomfortable thing. It's easier to keep doing things the way you've been doing them for 30 years even though most of the way you've been doing them didn't produce any results. Didn't produce a majority. Still, it's difficult to do something new. So, for many of the old bulls, Newt made them uncomfortable and caused them concern and for many, he was nothing but a bomb thrower. There were many others, of course, that saw that one of the reasons that he was as controversial as he was, is because you had to be when you're on the back bench to get attention. If you just say what everybody else is saying and you're saying it from the back bench, nobody listens. So there was a lot of deliberateness in some of the rash things that Newt was doing and calling for.

Q: The nature of our politics now. It is said that it is coarser and nastier. You saw the spans of the political process. I wonder, could he have succeeded any other way? I guess what I'm asking you is, (a) Do you think our politics are nastier in some way because of Newt's arrival? and (b) would he still be Newt if it weren't for that fact?

Vander Jagt: Politics in the House today are much more partisan, much nastier than when I arrived. Both sides are more bitterly partisan towards one another than they were 25 years ago and there is much less gentlemanliness. That was not brought about by Newt. There is less respect in all of our institutions, whether it be universities or church politics. It's nastier today than it was 25 years ago. Newt could not have created a Republican majority without being con-confrontational. You had to show that there is a difference. It does make a difference whether the Democrats run the place or the Republicans run the place. And in a sense Newt has made it more confrontational today because he is, in his view and in mine, fighting for the soul of America. Which way do we go into the 21st Century? This is a fundamental issue. So the left, the liberal wing is fighting for their very life. They're fighting for survival. They really want government to get bigger and to spend more and to have more of an impact on the daily life of individual Americans. And Newt's taking it the other way, so they are fighting for their very life. And when you're fighting for your life you get desperate, and so, it is much more partisan now. For a number of reasons, but one of the main reasons is that they are essentially fighting over the soul of America.

Q: This moral view, which is another [thing] that is more pronounced than the partisan bias, is not necessarily a bad thing.

Vander Jagt: No. In fact, one of the things that I tried to do in the 18 years that I was Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee was to make it more partisan, to say, 'You know, there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. By and large Democrats really do believe in more spending so government can do more good things for people. Republicans really do believe in less spending so the taxpayer can keep more.' Now that's a difference and I tried very hard to etch that difference. You would go down the list of issues and you'd try to show there's a difference. Now that's partisan but it's also good government.