The Politics Of Politics

On Thursday there was a column in this newspaper by James Broder.

In it, Broder interviewed Newt Gingrich, the embattled Republican speaker of the House of Representatives.

Gingrich, you may remember, received a formal reprimand and was ordered to pay a penalty of $300,000 for violating House ethics rules.

Hmm, ethics rules for politicians. Akin to temperance rules for drunks.

Anyway, the thrust of the article was that while Gingrich has had some problems, he is now riding high - well, at least higher - these days.

His colleagues are being nicer to him and there is less division in his party.

And, Broder reports, Gingrich has a "new role model. ...Sam Rayburn, the legendary Texas Democrat who was speaker of the House from 1940 until his death in 1961."

Gingrich says he and Rayburn have a lot in common.

"You look at Rayburn operating in 1955-56 with a similarly small majority against (President) Eisenhower and you find a certain level of turmoil. Northern liberal Democrats often were fighting with Southern conservative Democrats. His job was to hold them all together and to maneuver against a president with considerable personal skills who had a high popularity rating. And in the process, Rayburn shattered the Republican Party. Because he was able to distance Eisenhower from his party and define the Republican Party in ways that were unsustainable, this (the Republican leader's) office remained the minority office for 40 years," Gingrich told Broder.

Then Gingrich says he thinks he and modern day Republicans can do the same thing to the Democrats. Pick the issues carefully. Force Democrats to either "give up their ideology or give up their allies. When we offer better alternatives, we draw the country, and even draw Clinton, away from the Democrats."

Let's think about this for a moment. What does this tell you about Newt Ginrich's priorities. He gets a nationally syndicated columnist in his office. He can talk about anything he wants.

Here's a chance for him to get out a message - albeit a columnist-tainted message - for free.

What message does he convey? His vision for a better America? His vision for solving the looming Medicare crisis? His vision for a balanced budget? Welfare reform? Shrinking government?

Nah. His vision for getting more Republicans in office.

And that, first and foremost, is what is wrong with our system of goverment. Politics is not now, never has been and never will be about what is best for us.

It's about what's best for them. And what's best for them? Getting re-elected. At any cost. At all costs.

It's about power. It's about holding the purse strings on our money and slathering it on a favorite project.

It tires me.

I read the stories about John Huang and the Democratic campaign fund-raising debacle - the influence peddling, the leaking of classified information, checks passed in the White House, Lincoln bedroom rentals, etc., etc. - and I feel violated.

And of course the Republicans are about as pure as the driven slush when it comes to campaign money.

Early this week, as the hearings were unfolding, a story surfaced about a shell corporation in Florida being a front for a Japanese company to funnel funds to Haley Barbour who gave it to the GOP.

Big shock, eh?

So they're all pointing fingers at each other and trying to convince us one guy is worse than the next. But are they talking at all about reforming the system that made this nonsense possible in the first place?

Of course not.

Will we have meaningful campaign finance reform anytime soon? No way. The people charged with changing the system profit most by leaving it alone. End of story.

And at the same time they're so concerned about their ability to raise huge amounts of money, they begrudge us a chance to keep a little bit more of ours.

Anytime the phrase "tax cut" gets mentioned in Washington, there are legions of politicians who line up at the podium to tell us all how its a sop to the rich.

Here's a flash. I am not the rich. I want tax cuts. I want fewer government programs.

I don't want some government redistribution of wealth to help engineer some politician's social vision.

I get incensed when someone argues against lowering the estate tax, for example. You scrimp and save all you life to leave something for your heirs. You paid taxes on that money when you made it. Whose estate is it? The government's?

It bugs me when someone argues against lowering the tax on capital gains. Do these people think the government creates jobs? That the goverment produces goods? That the goverment generates revenue?

The current healthy economy is not the result of government programs. It's the result of government getting out of the way.

Many analysts, for example, credit Reagan era tax cuts for a boom in capital formation that created millions of jobs. The poverty level dropped a percentage point during that time, too.

But I keep forgetting. That was the evil decade of greed. Those greedy taxpayers keeping more of their own money.

I guess some politicians just won't be happy until all the wealth in America is redistributed and we all are equally poor.

Of course that's all of us, not all of them. A fter all, they've got some serious cash to raise - from those evil rich folks they all love to disrespect.

*****

News Views is taking a two-week vacation. The column will resume on Aug. 2.