Whip Flogged!

John J. Pitney discusses what Tom DeLay's fall from grace means for American politics. A Reason interview

The indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) on conspiracy charges yesterday did more than just enrage GOP shills and temporarily return dead skunks to the center of American politics. It followed a trail of political scandals that goes back further than the U.S. Constitution. But is that all history has to tell us? In American politics, a front-page scandal can turn into an epochal event, a nine-days wonder, a historical footnote, or even a long national orgasm. It's impossible to say where DeLay's case will fall on this continuum, but it's never too early to start guessing.

Reason contributing editor John J. Pitney is the Roy P. Crocker Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College, and the author, most recently, of The Art of Political Warfare. His frequent opinion writing has dealt with political attack publishing, the great Tocqueville fraud, and the persistence of political clichés. For Reason, he has written about the real and imagined legacy of Robert F. Kennedy, Pat Moynihan drunk and sober, the ascendancy of southern Republicans, and his own unfitness for elected office. Pitney spoke with Reason web editor Tim Cavanaugh about DeLay's dilemma and what it means for the future.

Reason: Can you give a brief idea of what the charges against DeLay mean, and what their immediate political impact on the Republicans might be?

John J. Pitney: The direct impact will probably be slight. Outside of DeLay's own district, few voters will think about his problems when they go to the polls. In 1989, Speaker Jim Wright and Majority Whip Tony Coelho both quit under ethical clouds, yet Democrats gained seats in 1990. But DeLay's departure does deprive the congressional GOP of a top strategist and fundraiser. And the charges throw Republicans off message. They would rather talk about constituent service than leadership ethics.

Reason: Beyond the impact we've already seen with DeLay's stepping down as House majority leader, how will this affect the political landscape in Washington, D.C.?

Pitney: Expect Democrats to ramp up attacks on the GOP. Expect Republicans to counterattack by raising questions about Democratic ethics. The rhetoric will be nasty. The open question is whether the speech salvos result in formal complaints. In that case, we could see a breakdown of the "ethics truce" that has informally prevailed in the House since the investigation of Newt Gingrich. The prospect of mutually assured destruction might stay their hands, however.

Reason: Take us back to some historical scandals, such as Jim Wright, Dan Rostenkowski, and maybe some older ones we don't remember. Is there any pattern to be seen, and if so how does DeLay fit into it?

Pitney: Since the 1980s, the game has been "sack the quarterback." Each party tries to take out the other side's leaders through ethics attacks (Wright, Coelho, House Speaker Newt Gingrich), gaffe attacks (Senate GOP Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, and Gingrich again), or targeted efforts to deny reelection (House Speaker Tom Foley, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle). DeLay's problems stem from a local Texas prosecutor rather than a Washington group, but the effect is the same.

Reason: The charges against DeLay are coming from a Texas grand jury, but, in addition to the nationwide political fallout, there's a more general character to the charges themselves—since they seem to involve funneling money from a Texas-specific PAC to the national Republican party. Is there any important distinction between the Texas scandal and the D.C. scandal that results from it?

Pitney: There are perhaps five people who really understand federal campaign finance law in the wake of McCain-Feingold and who also understand Texas campaign finance law. Alas, I am not one of them.

Reason: Are scandals like this one a function of being the party in power?

Pitney: Power draws money, and money creates the potential for ethical problems.

Reason: So is this the beginning of a deluge, where we'll see more Republicans getting into hot water? Senate Majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) or Gov. Bob Taft of Ohio, for example?

Pitney: A lot depends on what opposition researchers can dig up and leak to the press. As Robert Penn Warren wrote: "Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud. There is always something."

Reason: What is the scandal cycle in D.C.? The Rostenkowski indictment and eventual conviction, for example, was linked with a more general House Post Office scandal. Could we be seeing a broader scandal brewing in this case?

Pitney: There does not seem to be that kind of linkage, at least not yet. Frist's problems appear to be totally different from DeLay's. Then again, who knows what lies under Capitol rocks?

Reason: So far the president has not made any public hand-washing gesture with regard to DeLay, even though the investigation has been brewing for a couple years, and White House spokesman Scott McClellan was more or less supportive in his comments yesterday. In scandals like this, how long does it typically take before the party has to throw the damaged politician to the wolves?

Pitney: At times like this, politicians light a candle, turn toward Montpelier, Virginia, and say a prayer of thanks to James Madison. Under the separation of powers, President Bush can say that the change of leadership is a congressional matter that does not involve the White House. Under bicameralism, GOP senators can say that it is a House matter that does not involve the Senate. Meanwhile, House Republicans will maintain a loyalty to DeLay—unless and until they see him as a drag to their own survival. At that point they would say Tom Who?

Reason: What kind of damage could this do to the Republicans, and how can they minimize it?

Pitney: Republicans should be glad that they retained the conference rule requiring indicted leaders to step aside. Without that rule, DeLay might have felt the temptation to hang on, thus giving Democrats a big fat target. Until interest in the case dies down, expect the House Republicans to avoid extensive exposure to the national press.

Reason: Conversely, how do the Democrats capitalize on this? In hindsight it seems like the resignations of Wright and Tony Coelho and the 1992 House Bank scandal set the stage for the 1994 Gingrich revolution, in the sense that the party controlling Congress was seen as corrupt and out-of-touch, which allowed the challengers to flip things with a strong message. Do we have two out of three here?

Pitney: The 1994 upheaval resulted from long-term forces, including the realignment of the South. The election of Bill Clinton opened a window for Republicans to become the outside reformers. The fundamentals do not point to massive Democratic gains in 2006. Nevertheless, they could still make serious inroads if they can develop a sense of what they're for, not just what they're against. They don't need a Contract, but they do need some ideas other than outbidding the GOP on Katrina aid.