I was drawn in by the teaser for David Brooks NYT op-ed
The Designated Hitter "The Tom DeLay era, which ended Wednesday, was marked by one word: partisanship." curious whether he was showing another
rare moment of intelligent thought.
Since most of you are blocked by the NYT subscription wall, here's what I found:
Brooks describes an early rivalry between Gingrich and DeLay, and contrasts the two:
The big difference between the two men is that while Gingrich is a self-styled visionary, DeLay is a partisan. Gingrich was quite willing to cut deals with Democrats if it would serve some policy objective.
Brooks goes on with comparisons:
The DeLay Era, which commenced with Gingrich's fall, would be different.
The DeLay Era would be marked by one word: partisanship. Far from being a conservative ideologue, DeLay was a traditional Tammany Hall politician who would do whatever it took to put more Republican fannies in House seats.
But then after briefly trying to defend DeLay as a good man, Brooks goes on with examples of how he trades pork for votes, something he doesn't appear to believe Gingrich did, and generally criticizes DeLay for non-conservative actions. And comparing one of his own to Tammany Hall? That's a pretty big shift.
Brooks decides DeLay, like Bush, values loyalty over all else:
Politics is a team sport. Nobody can get anything done alone. But in today's Washington, loyalty to the team displaces loyalty to the truth. Loyalty to the team explains why President Bush doesn't fire people who serve him poorly, and why, as a result, his policies are often not well executed.
But finally, Brooks feels compelled to end with a jab at the Democrats:
Will we learn from DeLay's fall about the self-destructive nature of the team mentality? Of course not. The Democrats have drawn the 10-years-out-of-date conclusion that in order to win, they need to be just like Tom DeLay. They need to rigidly hew to orthodoxy. They need Deaniac hyperpartisanship.
Now, I don't think rigidly adhering to a party orthodoxy is a problem we've been having. We're still trying to find that central message, that central theme that we can all unite around (outside of wanting the Republicans out).
It's going to be interesting watching the reaction of conservative pundits to DeLay's fall, and all the others which the domino effect of corruption has, or may soon, take out, like Abramoff and Safavian, maybe followed by Frist, Rove, and Libby (good summary in another NYT article For Republicans, a Swelling Sea of Troubles). Are these pundits going to get defensive, or admit wrongdoing? Brooks seems to have already concluded that DeLay is done for, at least as a party leader. Willam Kristol is also quoted in the latter article, saying
Even though DeLay has nothing to do with Frist, and Frist has nothing to do with Abramoff, how does it look? Not good
This could be fun to watch...