Bread & circuses.

BEHIND closed doors, on the eve of the vote for the House Speakership, a frustrated and angry Newt Gingrich met with his Republican colleagues for the first time since the House ethics subcommittee had issued its findings and Gingrich had offered his apology. It was, by all accounts, a dramatic occasion -- with comic highlights like the porter scene in Macbeth as well as the expected hand-to-hand combat between the Speaker and his critics. And although Gingrich won the handful of votes needed to survive, it was such "a near-run thing" that the press is gloating over the prospect of further GOP civil war.

The Speaker's problem as he faced his colleagues was that many members knew of the ethics controversy almost entirely from news accounts. Since these were flatly hostile -- the New York Times is giving negative campaigning a good name -- many Republicans were understandably nervous. The House leadership set out to persuade them by reasoned analysis that the charges were either groundless or trivial. Given that the major charge is that Gingrich used tax-exempt contributions to teach a partisan view of American history (i.e., not actually anti-American history), this is not a hard case to make.

But passions were running too high for this sober tone to be maintained. Many of Newt's supporters, outraged at the media's practice of treating Democratic felonies as misdemeanors and Republican misdemeanors as capital crimes, saw this as a crucial skirmish in America's culture wars. The media had discovered a parking-ticket -- and triumphantly declared it to be a smoking parking-ticket. Any Republican who went along with this, in the eyes of loyalists, was playing the enemy's game.

Former fighter pilot Duke Cunningham spoke of his Vietnam comrades when battle demanded absolute loyalty. Iowa's Jim Nussle presented himself as Doubting Thomas whom Newt had persuaded by the evidence of his wounds. It was magnificent. But was it politics? Cooler heads restored perspective. When John Kasich argued that nothing less than America's culture was at stake, Henry Hyde advised him to "switch to decaf," going on to make a persuasive political case for backing the first Republican Speaker in forty years in the face of a frontal Democratic/media attack.

All this helped. But what finally swung enough votes was the unpopularity of Newt's critics. Just as antipathy to David Bonior and Democratic hypocrisy rallied the GOP to Gingrich, the lack of respect many members have for Gingrich's GOP detractors kept defections down. Tom Campbell of California was accuser-in-chief. He mounted a detailed critique of the Gingrich defense which, in the opinion of disapproving members, amounted to "accusing Newt of lying." This went down especially badly because members know that Gingrich went out of his way to help Campbell, a liberal, to win a special election in 1995.

Members similarly resent the sanctimony of Iowa's Jim Leach, invariably introduced in the media as one of the most ethical members of Congress.

But it is the opposition of Washington state's Linda Smith -- hated for her populist posturing over campaign finance -- that really helped. When she announced a press conference to oppose Gingrich, people wondered if the leadership hadn't privately encouraged her. One leadership aide said there might have been more defections, but "no one wanted to be in the Leach - Smith - Campbell - Morella caucus."

Even so, the outcome remained in doubt right down to the wire. In addition to the handful of members who had publicly refused to support Newt, there were a few others whose support was uncertain. Another handful could have given the Speakership to someone else.

Under House rules the Speaker must receive a majority of the votes of those members who vote for a candidate. Members who merely vote "present" are not counted in the total. So, as late as the morning of the vote, the GOP leadership began trying to persuade members who would not support the Speaker to vote "present" rather than for another candidate. Enough members complied to enable Gingrich to win with three votes to spare.

THIS victory, however, falls short of a personal endorsement. It was as much a determination that Democrats should not decide the Speakership of a House with a GOP majority. One member believes that wavering Republicans like Charles Canady and Joe Scarborough of Florida and Peter Hoekstra of Michigan voted for Gingrich precisely because it was unclear what would happen if he didn't win and "no member wanted to take responsibility for unraveling things on opening day." It might have been different if Virginia's Frank Wolf, who is held in high regard, had not remained quiet about his decision to vote "present." As one member pointed out, others might have followed his lead "if Wolf wasn't at the end of the alphabet."

Having re-elected Newt Gingrich as Speaker, Republicans now worry about his effectiveness over the months ahead. They know the Democrats will continue tormenting him. At the outset of the 104th Congress, triumphant Republicans felt indebted to Newt Gingrich for having led them out of the political wilderness. As the 105th Congress begins, chastened Republicans believe that he is now indebted to them for rescuing him from political oblivion. And it was conservatives -- not GOP liberals or "moderates" -- who provided the most public support. They now hope that the House leadership will fight as hard on behalf of a conservative agenda as they did on behalf of the Speaker.

And this will directly affect the Speaker's ability to play the ace up his sleeve: the same one he played to such effect in this crisis. Republicans rightly rallied to prevent David Bonior and Dan Rather from dictating who will lead the GOP Congress. They will do so again when Bonior and the media re-launch their anti-Gingrich jihad --provided they feel that they have a real political stake in his survival.