Newt Gingrich biggest geek in GOP primary race, says Scientific American

Newt Gingrich – also known as 'Newt Skywalker' – topped the Scientific American ranking of six GOP candidates. Ron Paul came in third.

Photo illustration: Jake Turcotte Gingrich (Matt Rourke/AP) 'Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back' (Lucasfilm Ltd./AP)

Newt Gingrich – a.k.a. "Newt Skywalker" – is by far the biggest geek in the GOP presidential field, according to a Scientific American ranking.

Mitt Romney comes in second, and Ron Paul is third among the six candidates reviewed.

The ranking makes much of Gingrich's immersion in science fiction, including his love of Issac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy. Here's what Newt wrote about this seminal work while he was Speaker of the House in 1996:

While Toynbee was impressing me with the history of civilizations, Isaac Asimov was shaping my view of the future in equally profound ways….For a high school student who loved history, Asimov’s most exhilarating invention was the ‘psychohistorian’ Hari Seldon. The term does not refer to Freudian analysis but to a kind of probabilistic forecasting of the future of whole civilizations.  The premise was that, while you cannot predict individual behavior, you can develop a pretty accurate sense of mass behavior.  Pollsters and advertisers now make a good living off the same theory.

The Scientific American article quotes Bob Walker, a former chairman of the US House Committee on Science (now the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology), who said that Gingrich "would probably be the most knowledgeable president on technology issues ever elected."

The article uses a highly subjective 1 to 5 star ranking in three areas: "Geekiness," "Policies, and "Associations." Gingrich got five stars in the first two areas and four in the last.

What's more, according to Politico, the Georgia politician's forays into futurology in the 1980s and 1990s earned him the monicker  "Newt Skywalker." 

Mitt Romney scored four stars on Geekiness. Romney said in 2007 that his favorite novel was "Battlefield Earth" – a 1,000-page sci-fi yarn spun by Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard

The Scientific American article notes Romney, has a "corny sense of humor," but that "being socially awkward is not a sufficient qualification for ascendance to the rank of geek." Lose one geek star.

Ron Paul, says the article, might be better described as a Constitutional "nerd" or a "wonk," but not a geek. Still, author Christopher Mims notes, that many of Paul's libertarian supporters are Bona fide geeks.

The key policy issues that the candidates are ranked on include climate change, research funding, and views on evolution.

Rick Perry, the article states bluntly "is not a geek." But his energy and technology policies as governor of Texas earned him four "policy" stars. 

Reader reaction to the Jan. 3 "Geek Guide" to GOP candidates is a bit harsh. Some readers describe it as "unserious" more of a "dating guide" than a science profile, and object to using an interest in science fiction – rather than accuracy or expertise in a field – as criteria for assessing a political leader's science credentials.

One surprising omission from the article: Jon Huntsman. Remember this Huntsman remark (directed at Gov. Rick Perry) during a September GOP debate:

"Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I'm saying is that, in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science."

Who do you think is the biggest geek on the 2012 campaign trail?

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Newt Gingrich biggest geek in GOP primary race, says Scientific American
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today