In the aftermath of last Tuesday’s elections, a new generation of conservatives has stepped forward in the House, challenging the leadership that presided over the loss of the party’s majority. These conservatives are led by Indiana representative Mike Pence and Arizona representative John Shadegg, running for minority leader and minority whip respectively. They are backed by some of the most principled and talented young conservatives in the House: Paul Ryan, Jeff Flake, and Jeb Hensarling. We wish them well in their push to bring fresh blood to the top of their caucus.
Of course, neither the majority leader, John Boehner, nor the majority whip, Roy Blunt, was responsible for the GOP defeat. For one thing, neither of them had anything to do with the conduct of the Iraq War, which proved such a drag on the GOP this year. Nor were they blessed with a far-sighted and self-sacrificing “followership.” Members of the GOP House caucus were too often unwilling to give up perks or conveniences or to take up the kind of reform agenda that would have demonstrated to the public that they didn’t put their sheer self-preservation above all else.
But Boehner and Blunt did not do enough to try to head off the corruption issue, which had been building for two years. Instead, they let the mantle of clean government pass to the Democrats, who will now likely adopt the kind of restrictions on member travel and lobbying that Republicans should have made their own long ago (unless, that is, the Democratic “followership” proves as short-sightedly self-interested as that of the GOP). Under Boehner and Blunt’s leadership, the caucus adopted mild reforms of earmarking. But it never appreciated the political peril that its self-indulgence was creating, and never adopted reforms sufficient to reduce that peril.
Leadership elections are always inside games, influenced by personalities and dynamics that are hard for outsiders to grasp. Also, the GOP caucus understandably is not going to make its selections based solely on which candidates have the most conservative voting records and the freshest faces. There are concerns about what kind of relations Pence would have with the GOP’s moderates, for instance, and worries about whether Shadegg has the right skills for the vote-corralling job of whip.
Both Boehner, who has never defended earmarking and re-entered leadership only in January, and Blunt, who delivered a good speech at the Heritage Foundation last week on the way ahead, deserve a hearing. The more they can be put on record supporting far-reaching reforms and a return to fiscal discipline, the better. They then can be held to such words if elected.
But we think Republican interests would be best served by having at least one member of the top leadership who represents the post-2006 party and whose existence in the leadership depends entirely on the reformist members who are not part of the GOP's “comfortable caucus.” It is important to understand that the definition of these leadership jobs changed after Nov. 7. They are no longer about management so much, since there is no longer a majority to manage. Instead, they will require finding and effectively advocating issues that discomfit Democrats and make them vulnerable in 2008. That task will require both a clear sense of the issues that divide the parties and a sure political touch.
Last week, Republicans suffered their defeat. Now it’s time for them to begin their renewal.
