A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

Sometimes you get to see the whole iceberg.

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pled guilty today to fraud, conspiracy to commit bribery and tax evasion, admitting that he took $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for steering defense contracts to companies including MZM Inc.  He'll be sentenced in February, and could face up to ten years in prison.

The Republican pollster quoted by The Washington Post -- anonymously, for the usual lame reason that the party line he is giving he couldn't give freely if he were named -- is probably right that Cunningham's conviction is not by itself a major political problem for Republicans in Washington.  However, it is no more than fair to ask whether this is something that deserves to be considered "by itself."  When unethical conduct that does not, or at least cannot be proved to, descend to the level of criminality is unusual, a case like Cunningham's sticks out as exceptional.  That isn't the case in Washington today, and while the phenomenon is undoubtedly bipartisan the Republicans holding majorities in both houses of Congress bear the greatest responsibility.

The specifics of Cunningham's case may not involve other members of Congress -- though one wonders how an Armed Services Committee member could take bribes to steer contracts to marginally qualified firms over a period of years without running into more obstacles either on the Committee, or in the Senate, or in the Pentagon (and Josh Marshall, who has covered the Cunningham business thoroughly for months, has his doubts).  But Cunningham's case is only one of many -- many of the rest are wrapped up in the spreading stain of the Abramoff scandal -- and at some point voters are going start associating Republicans with corruption.

Corruption, speaking strictly in terms of campaign mechanics, is a terrific issue because it enables a party out of power to paper over its internal differences.  National security has often served that purpose for the Republicans in the past.  A major reason it has is that the Democrats have had very few prominent leaders who even had much interest in national security issues.  They were easy targets for that reason; Republicans are very close to being easy targets on the corruption issue now.

Absolutely we should expect the Democrats to lump Cunningham's conviction with DeLay's indictment, GOP staffers cashing in on K Street and Abramoff's ties to Burns, Doolittle, Ney and God knows how many other Republicans in a package called "Republican corruption," and run on it next year.  It's what I'd do in their place.  Why spend time trying to work out an acceptable line for everyone to follow on abortion or taxes or Iraq when you can put all that on the back burner and campaign against people taking bribes?  And I have to say as a Republican that there is part of me that views this prospect with equanimity.

One reason for this is I'm not a big fan of corruption.  People who take bribes or launder illegal campaign contributions or live off gaming lobbyists deserve what they get.  Another is that while the political consequences of corruption in 2006 may include a net loss of Republican seats, they probably won't include a loss of really worthwhile legislators (as, for example, the Senate's proceedings against Bob Packwood did in the 1990s).  What is Bob Ney to the Republican Party's future, or the country's?  John Doolittle?  Conrad Burns?  What, for that matter, are Tom DeLay and his staff capos gone to K Street?  I honestly can't think of a single principle vital to the GOP's future that is bound up in the fate of any of these guys.  If they go down, they go down.

Lastly there is the stasis in Washington.  Congressmen who want to get reelected nearly always do; even Senate seats are becoming so safe that when a Senator like Rick Santorum does face a tough race it's national news.  This isn't healthy for any democracy.  I suppose my preference would be to see a lot of Congressional Democrats thrown out and replaced by 35 and 40 year old clones of Richard Lugar, John McCain and Rob Portman.  But realistically, rising public discontent with Washington has to be responded to in some way; the electoral system has to produce something that can be called change.  Republicans in Washington, having been on watch while their colleagues decided to get some for themselves, may pay the price for it a year from now.  The country will live, and so will the party.  The GOP may even thrive, if it can take some of the people more interested in getting office and profiting from it than doing anything useful once there, and throw them over the side.