1115.org

No matter what one thinks of Republican policies or the actions of its party leaders, it’s hard not to admit that they have long played the political game with a skill honed to a fine point. For years, a unified message was presented on issue after issue with little in the way of deviation or dissent from the ranks. While a so-called “maverick” such as John McCain would occasionally stray from the approved talking points, by and large the Republicans in our legislative and executive branches (as well as their helpers in the pundit class) have created the political equivalent of The Borg on Star Trek, an army of Windsor-knot cyborgs who suppress their individuality to further the goals of the hive.

This is the way it’s been for years, and the Democrats—with their pet issues, public disagreements and a message that seems Frankensteined together so that no one’s toes gets stepped on—have stood by meekly or angrily (depending on which day you’re paying attention) while the Republicans have consolidated their power and influence. But what happens when the Republicans, whose system has depended on strong party leaders to set the agenda for everyone else, find themselves plummeting toward a vaccuum of leadership?

This kind of question seemed like pure fantasy even a year ago. But now that Tom DeLay finds himself on the wrong side of an indictment, Bill Frist is under investigation for a suspicious stock sale, George Bush is sinking in public opinion polls under the twin weights of Iraq and Katrina, and Karl Rove still waits beneath the cloud of the Valerie Plame mess, it wouldn’t be surprising if rank-and-file Senators and Congressmen started getting a little bit anxious. Do they move to assert their individuality before upcoming elections, and take the risk of being deprived of pet programs, administrative perks and PAC money? Or do they give their full backing to the leadership, knowing full well that such support might be a political death sentence if the stink of corruption refuses to wash away? At this point, there seems to be no easy answer. But the cracks are beginning to show in what was once a solid wall of Republican message and discipline.

Skirmishes were reported following Hurricane Katrina, when a few Republicans openly criticized the government’s response, and even more came out swinging against the President’s proposed “blank check” method of paying for the reconstruction. To the hard-line fiscal conservatives, such a plan was pure lunacy, and it was compounded further by DeLay’s statement that there was no fat left to cut from the budget. With DeLay facing the possibility of jail time, he no longer has the leverage that he once did to keep such dissent under wraps. It’s only been a day since the indictment was announced, and already the Washington Post is reporting that DeLay’s handpicked successor was rejected because of controversy among the ranks:

What he and Hastert wanted was a timeserver, someone to hold the job but with no ambitions to stay in it. And they had someone in mind. This week, an aide to the speaker approached Rep. David Dreier about his role in a post-DeLay caucus. Dreier, a congenial Californian who has loyally served the GOP leadership as Rules Committee chairman, expressed interest in helping Hastert.

There was one big problem: When DeLay’s indictment was unsealed yesterday, conservatives in the GOP caucus immediately erupted in anger over rumors that the selection of Dreier, whom they regard as too moderate, was being presented as a fait accompli .

As the conservatives met to vent frustrations and plot options, Hastert was changing course in a separate meeting on the second floor of the Capitol. Rep. Roy Blunt (Mo.), the majority whip, was making a personal appeal for the promotion. Hastert agreed, forestalling a possible revolt by conservatives, who regard Blunt as one of their own.

The wild day of maneuvering made clear that beneath the image of lockstep discipline in the House — which DeLay himself enforced for years — the GOP caucus is rife with ambitious personalities in not-so-subtle competition. With DeLay sidelined, it will fall largely to Hastert to move President Bush’s agenda and to maintain order among an increasingly restless crowd as the 2006 elections approach.

Blunt is widely regarded as a protege of DeLay, right down to the curious connections to lobbyists and big campaign contributors. He’s not a stopgap player. Once he takes the role of Majority Leader, the chances of Tom DeLay getting the position back becomes increasingly dim, and his influence on the House as a whole will likewise fade. And unless Blunt is as good of an enforcer as DeLay has time-and-time-again proven himself to be, the Republican House may find themselves increasingly splintered as they head into the next election cycle.

This is an opportunity for Democrats—that is, if they’ve learned enough to take advantage of it.