It is quite possible that for political parties periodic "revolutions" may be necessary to allow true progress and prevent stagnation. 

An opinion piece by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey in the latest edition of Imprimis caught my eye, and for good reason.  It was entitled "Whatever Happened to the Contract with America?"  This is an excellent question, as the "Contract" a statement of principles and intentions introduced by the Republican Party during the 1994 congressional election helped bring that party
to control of both houses of the Legislature. 

Armey's paper addresses the question by dividing legislators into two classes; entrepreneurs and bureaucrats.  According to Armey the entrepreneur is "a person who has a set of principles and is willing to take risks on its behalf."  The bureaucrat seeks to "perpetuate the present situation" and "remain safely in office."  This analysis is somewhat novel in method, but can be considered factually correct, as we see that there are a vast Number of legislators whose primary goal is to remain in office, at the expense of all else.  This leads to one of Armey's concluding statements; that "In the end the Republican Congress – in the two or three years leading up to the Democratic victories in 2006 – had utterly forsaken its commitment to liberty and limited government with the often active acquiescence of the White House." 

Armey’s analysis is correct.  What happens when legislators begin to concentrate on staying in office, rather than on what is best for the nation their willingness to take risks becomes compromised.  This, in turn, leads to the potential for the legislator to concentrate on what is most likely to garner them the most votes in the next election, which in turn leads to pork barrel spending, handing out of political favors, consorting with lobbyists, and worse.  Armey asserts that when this happens and “When it’s only about power, you lose.”  Again he is correct, but only up to a point.  This axiom appears to be applicable only to Republican and/or Conservative office holders.  Liberals such as Ted Kennedy appear to be unaffected by it, hence their remaining in office, essentially for perpetuity.  What Armey does not address is why this is true, and perhaps the limited format of Imprimis did not permit him to do so.  In any event, I will attempt to do so here.

The Contract with America was at bottom line, a conservatively oriented document.  The basic underlying principle that drives the voting behavior of Conservatives and many Republicans is one of policy and principle, which is grounded in intelligent analysis of actions, not words; and results, rather than intentions.  This is why so many Conservatives scoff at the “hope and change” message promoted by the current Democrat candidate.  “Hope” is meaningless without opportunity, and Democrats are anti-opportunity.  “Change” is likewise meaningless unless one knows what is being changed, and what the change is going to be.  But to someone who is interested in simple but catchy sounding slogans and platitudes, it works very well.

True Conservatives are driven not by emotion, sloganeering or cheap marketing ploys.  They examine candidate behavior, past policy support, and future intentions.  They are also true to their convictions and principles; a trait that leads them to question the actions of both Presidents Bush, and the intentions of John McCain as a potential President.  They refuse to march in lockstep with the party, just for the sake of unity, and many seriously consider not voting at all because no candidate fits their view of what the nation needs.  They are willing to criticize representatives who err, and continually watch out for anyone that does.  And, they are more likely to be the party of change because they are the party that generally favors maximizing a citizen’s rights to control his or her own destiny.

In January of 2006 I obliquely addressed Tom DeLay’s involvement with and Jack Abramoff  and it seems reasonable to mention the incident again at this time.  It seems possible that DeLay had made the transition from entrepreneur to bureaucrat, allowing himself to become involved in activities that were better avoided.  When all the dust settled, DeLay was not convicted of anything, and almost certainly committed no crime.  Still, for the true conservative, it is not only Caesar’s wife who must be above suspicion.  Caesar must be also, for his own protection, as well as that of the party.  In a hostile political environment, it is an absolute necessity.  

In the end, Armey is correct.  The Republican Party shot itself in both feet in the term leading up to 2006.  As is usual, power tends to corrupt, and the party refused to recognize that it was being corrupted by failure to recognize the nature of its base.  This is what brought down the spirit of the Contract With America, and what led to the alienation of Conservative voters.  It is what has left us in 2008 with a lot of difficult choices and in the final analysis a candidate whom many do not trust.  

There has been a sentiment among some commentators that McCain’s position is similar to that of Bob Dole in 1996.  That it is a candidacy of “it’s my turn”.  The answer to this is that if McCain had not stayed in office so long, and had groomed someone younger to move in behind him, then the continual turnover of office holders would 1) make power orientation less common, 2) support legislative entrepreneurship, and make the Republican Party a place where initiative, energy, youth and ability are recognized.  In today’s political scene people such as Bobby Jindal are a rarity.  Politicians who voluntarily move aside to make way for new blood are unusual.  Party loyalty often means that an incumbent must not be challenged.  This means that new blood often gets side tracked, or disinterested.  This prevents idealism, energy, and renewed enthusiasm for basic principles gets wasted; sacrificed on the altar of seniority.  

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as suggesting that periodic revolutions may be necessary to maintain liberty.  It is also possible that in political parties “revolutions” may be necessary to prevent stagnation and to allow progress.  

Those interested in reading Dick Armey's column in full may find it here .