So now comes a new political treatise, touted by Republicans everywhere. It is the Good Gridlock Theory of Government, and it is based on an appealing, common-sense calculation: Stopping bad legislation is a good idea.
Republicans, once fearful of being labeled obstructionists, discovered that just saying no could work to their advantage during the battle over health care reform. After 70 percent of the voters said they would like to kill Bill Clinton's plan, the GOP happily obliged -- and became the good guys. Astonished by their own success, Republicans then took on the crime bill by pushing another hot button -- pork. Next they throttled lobbying reform (a favorite GOP target), in part by claiming -- falsely -- that unregistered, grass-roots volunteers could be guilty of a federal offense. The coup de grace, though, was forcing Congress to hold up approval of the updated General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: Even though Republicans supported it, they were more interested in frustrating Bill Clinton.
Such activity breeds the negative voters the minority loves: frustrated, angry, ready to throw the mostly Democratic bums out. They are cynical, upset that Congress isn't working and that Clinton hasn't delivered on his promises.
Fair enough. But the voters might want to know that they are being used. After they thwarted Clinton on health care, the Republicans figured it would be beneficial to bolt on everything else -- playing to the public's cynicism, even deepening it. They are setting up the voters, offering them a false choice between Bill Clinton (whom people don't much like) and gridlock (which they don't really want).
Polarization. The result could be nothing but trouble. If midterm election predictions are reliable, the next Congress will be even more polarized than the present one. The most liberal House members are among those most likely to survive this fall's GOP onslaught, and the new House Republicans -- most of whom are running as born-again Reaganites -- are bound to be more conservative. Meantime, more moderate and conservative Democrats in the South are expected to lose their seats. "We'll end up with a bunch of knee jerks," says Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin, "a class of members who came in by pushing hot buttons."
The center will not hold, and the result may not be what the public has in mind. White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta still swears that "the people want government to work." He may be right, but the voters are more ambivalent than Panetta would like: They want a government that does something, yet they also believe that government is likely to botch most of what it does. Fewer people today trust the government to do what's right than did so during Watergate.
As recently as last July, 61 percent of the respondents in one poll said the government should guarantee health care. At the same time, their leading concern was that government would exert too much control over health care. Congressional behavior has done nothing to change their views. "In Washington, we distinguish between Republicans and Democrats," says Democratic strategist Mark Mellman. "In the real world, it is the politicians against the rest of us."
But if the public is assuming this fall that new nobodies are better than old somebodies, then a word of caution is in order: Throwing the bums out may only bring in a bunch of dumber bums. Yes, lots of new candidates are worthy, and, yes, some veteran legislators ought to be defeated. But there is danger in an election that turns on what people are not rather than on who they are.
Consider the poster boy for the dumbing down of the Senate, Republican candidate Rep. Michael Huffington of California. Even some Republicans privately admit that Huffington, full of neolibertarian rhetoric but devoid of interesting ideas, may be an empty suit. Nevertheless, he has incumbent Democrat Dianne Feinstein on the run. Huffington has millions of his own dollars, but he mostly profits from the theory that it might be better to blow up the Senate and start over from scratch.
But what if that explosion produces a ninny Congress that is not only do-nothing but also know-nothing? Recall that a dozen Republicans were swept into the Senate on Ronald Reagan's coattails in 1980 -- and that half of them were swept out again after a single term. "They had nothing more to say," admits Republican strategist William Kristol. "The second stage of our revolution has got to be thought through better."
Neither the principle of good gridlock nor the GOP's recent "Contract With America," which claims a bunch of recycled old ideas are new, passes Kristol's test. Both may be effective short-term political tactics, and that is often what midterm elections are about. But if the Republicans win the victories they seek, they will be forced to present a real domestic agenda. It's easy to relax when the breeze is blowing your way. But once it takes you where you want to go, you had better know what you want to do.
