Power for power’s sake

October 9, 2006

Time magazine’s cover story included a gem of a lede:

Every revolution begins with the power of an idea and ends when clinging to power is the only idea left. The epitaph for the movement that started when Newt Gingrich and his forces rose from the back bench of the House chamber in 1994 may well have been written last week in the same medium that incubated it: talk radio. On conservative commentator Laura Ingraham’s show, the longest-serving Republican House Speaker in history explained why he would not resign despite a sex scandal that has produced a hail of questions about his leadership and the failure to stop one of his members from cyberstalking teenage congressional pages.

“If I fold up my tent and leave,” Dennis Hastert told her, “then where does that leave us? If the Democrats sweep, then we’d have no ability to fight back and get our message out.”

Classic. The goal isn’t to use power to achieve policy goals; the power is the goal. It explains quite a bit, doesn’t it?

In the context of the Foley fiasco, this guiding principle certainly helps shed some light on how NRCC chairman Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.) approached the problem.

Last week, for example, Bob Novak reported that Reynolds, after seeing Foley’s incriminating emails, still urged Foley to seek re-election. Foley was considering retirement, Novak explained, but Reynolds intervened and talked him into seeking a seventh term.

Today, Novak adds some additional details.

Disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley had two excellent job offers in the private sector this year when Rep. Tom Reynolds, National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, talked him into seeking a seventh term.

Although Reynolds says Foley was merely deciding whether to run again, the talk in Republican circles on Capitol Hill was that he was ready to leave Congress. His inappropriate e-mails to a former page were known to the Republican leadership late last year. The 16th Congressional District was considered so safely Republican that any GOP candidate could carry it but now likely will be lost with Foley still on the ballot.

Honestly, what could have possessed Reynolds to keep pushing Foley like this? Foley wanted to step aside, he knew incriminating emails were making the rounds, and he suspected it was time to bail. Reynolds insisted otherwise, even though he knew about the emails, probably because he saw no upside to having to defend yet another House district. He took a gamble, and lost.

Yes, it’s ironic that Reynolds’ plan to preserve one district may end up costing Reynolds’ NRCC many more districts.

And just as an aside, it’s also worth noting that someone in the House GOP still seems anxious to make Reynolds look pretty bad in the Foley mess, otherwise they wouldn’t keep dishing to Novak about Reynolds’ mistakes. Are Hastert and his allies still trying to shift the blame?

Reminds me of the book 1984 when O’Brien tells Winston:

“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. “

  • Yes, it’s ironic that Reynolds’ plan to preserve one district may end up costing Reynolds’ NRCC many more districts.

    And doubly ironic is that it may likely cost Reynolds his own seat. He’s now trailing Jack Davis 48 to 33

  • Ok, I know this is a bit of a tangent, but bear with me.

    Dem strategists have argued that the angle candidates should take on the Foley matter is the parental angle (and given todays reports in various places about the GOP losing married women, this might be working well).

    But I think the Dems are missing another issue that also hits very close to home and fits into (and reinforces) a number of useful: food safety. Yeah, it normally sounds geeky and esoteric. Until a handful of people die from e. coli in spinach. and then beef gets recalled in 5 states. and then leaf lettuce gets pulled from the shelves. because Republican’ts take big money from the ag lobbies and gut food safety regulations, and underfund inspections.

    Republican’ts: first they can’t protect us from terrorists (9/11, the new NIE, ports, etc), they can’t protect our sons and daughters abroad (already 30 troop deaths in October), and now more proof they can’t protect us at home, either (from Foley, from unsafe food, from hurricanes, etc.)

    Why can’t they protect us? Corruption, Croneyism, and a lack of Competence. The power of lobbyists like Abramoff to weaken regulation. The placing of campaign workers in key positions in Iraq. Of key contributors in FEMA. Of hard-right ideology like that of Wolfowitz over the common sense of experienced Generals and moderate, long-time Senators.

    Can you really trust the Republican Party to look out for you anymore?
    Vote Democratic – For Government that Helps You Instead of Politicians who Help Themselves.

  • Allen K beat me to Billmon beating us to the answer to the question.

    –or–

    there are 3 million answers to the question.

  • What pushed the GOP to keep Shrub in office? See #2.

    Can you say overweening ambition? People point to Malcolm X’s by any means necessary statement as the leftie radical quote. I wonder what he’d think if he knew the many “conservatives” have it tattooed on their arses?

    However, Malcolm X wasn’t talking about taking over the world. The GOP wanted that type of power because they refused to learn that an attempt to gain and maintain far-reaching power will always result in the dramatic destruction of the person or group who tries to get it. This tells me those who attempt to gain and maintain far-reaching power never read history or they wouldn’t pull the same stunt dozens of other idiots have tried.

    Here’s a conspiracy theory for ya: Reynolds used the e-mails to force Foley to run again.

  • “If the Democrats sweep, then we’d have no ability to fight back and get our message out.”

    What message? It’s ironic that Hastert’s cover-up of messages will hopefully prevent him from “getting his message out.” But still, what ideas does the Republican party have for anything? They have no ideas, are reactionary to all world events and all about gutting the government and making it ineffective in helping its true constituents. The again, the Repubs have sold out, been corrupted, disgraced this nation and are all talk and no action, so maybe words are all they have left.

  • One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. –George Orwell, 1984

    Some things never change.

  • Zeitgeist, I think you would like an essay at
    http://www.needlenose.com/taxonomy/page/or/101 .

    With apologies for substantially repeating a post at the Washington Monthly, the writer argues that Democrats should be building a narrative rather than dealing with scandals and issues piecemeal, and that the ideal narrative is the Republicans’ massive betrayal of trust. This is basically what you are saying, but ties all that and even more all together very succinctly. It ties together social security, the Iraq War, domestic safety, food safety, and all manner of other Republican failings, and it is a very easily understood message. It should properly inspire outrage at the Republicans even in apathetic citizens and “values voters” (two groups that the Democrats have had a hard time reaching), and it is a perfectly natural fit with Democratic ideals about the role of government in competently fixing problems and making things better and fairer.

  • Their objectives can never be made explicit. They would never win an election if they were. From their perspective, the Bush admin has been a tremendous success. It’s all about the money.

  • Republican rule has been an accomplishment much like the major prehistoric meteor impacts. Our political strata will be marked evermore by Bush 43, and the example of what not to do, and the evolutionary changes that will result. Hopefully our democracy will respond with decisive corrections to abuses of special interest money, and limitations on presidential and single party powers.

  • the answer is orange: People point to Malcolm X’s by any means necessary statement as the leftie radical quote. I wonder what he’d think if he knew the many “conservatives” have it tattooed on their arses?

    nah, they have ‘whatever it takes‘ (scroll for cartoon or Google “whatever it takes” bush.

  • The Revolutionary War resulted from the actions of the few. It was not popular with many folks. Those who loved the King, fled to what we now call Canada. Of those who remained, many sat on the sidelines wondering what it was all about. One bedazzled fellow asked Ben Franklin what sort of government they had given the people. Ben replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” They didn’t and so we are now living in a Marxist nightmare.

  • Response to #4) Tangent, yes. Esoteric, yes. But poitnt well taken. It is painfully obvious the GOP is drunk on power, and will justify any means to reach that end. But will the normal majority echo those sentiments this coming election?

  • For several years, we’ve predicted that the chickens will come home to roost.” I think we’re now seeing the poultry perching. Bush policy, if it could be called that, is arranging itself in orderly shambles. Pick a category and survey the ruins. The administration is so profoundly incompetent that it hasn’t even done a good job of pillaging for itself.

  • sheridan, comment #1:

    “Power is not a means, it is an end… The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

    We aren’t quite there yet. But if we don’t stop these bastards NOW, we’re going to get a lot closer than any freedom-loving patriotic American should ever want to see.

  • Actually, I think a number of us here were way ahead of Time and others on this topic, noting this from the get go in our comments to the initial posts on this topic over a week ago.

  • Oh, and yet a large number of the evangelicals out there (‘hypocriticals’ they should be called) still plan to vote for the GOP this election. Because they do not like the Dem agenda–which can only mean abortion issues, seeing the Dems are for helping the poor, trying to eliminate suffering, not in favor of wars of choice and misleading the public on such very important issues, fair tax schemes, etc. etc. etc. Clear proof that they only care about life before it comes into this world, but afterwards that life is on its own, and it is even OK to allow predatory pedophiles run wild in Congress and with our minors as long as those that protect and enable that predator vote anti-abortion. Hypocriticals one and all.

  • I don’t understand the obssession with keeping Foley when you know he could cause you problems. I am quite sure they wanted to keep the seat Republican, but if they had gotten Foley to leave and a credible Republican to run they would have likely kept the seat anyway. I guess they were blinded or those fear-based responses get them in trouble every time.

  • Non-scientific from the Indianapolis Star (a metastsization of the journo-cancer that is Gannett Publishing):

    There are predictions of surge in votes for Democrats in November’s election. Which party do you plan to vote for?

    Republican: 47%
    Democrat: 45%
    Neither: 8%
    Total Votes: 2961

    *sigh*

    • Comments are closed.