I don’t like Dan Lungren and he doesn’t like me. When Lungren ran for governor in 1998, he ran a self-centered, indulgent campaign in which he chose to talk about the issues that were important to him rather than those that mattered most to the voters. He doesn’t like me, I’m guessing, because of statements like the one in the previous sentence.
The relationship took a turn for the worse when he ran for Congress two years ago. On Election Night, the Associated Press incorrectly reported that one of his opponents had won the Republican primary. Based on that incorrect information, I provided analysis for a local television station on why Lungren’s comeback had been unsuccessful. Despite heroic efforts by his brother Brian to bridge this gap over the years, my friendly advice would be to avoid inviting us to the same picnic anytime soon.
But on an issue of critical importance to the Republican Party, Dan Lungren is exactly correct. By advocating for the entire GOP leadership to step down and face new elections, Lungren clearly understands the scope of the problem the GOP faces in dealing with the lobbying scandals that have overwhelmed Capitol Hill in recent weeks. As Mike Spence, the most tireless blogger in the universe, has noted in this space, Lungren and his allies are now more than halfway to collecting the number of signatures from their colleagues to force elections for all of the leadership spots. What once seemed to be a quixotic but commendable stand on principle now appears to edging closer to success.
This is good news for many reasons, but most importantly that it would send a message to angry voters that congressional Republicans do understand the need to more forcefully address the ethical crisis that once again grips Capitol Hill. While both parties laid out their own proposals for lobbying reform last week, both the Republican and Democratic announcements had a dutiful and uninspired quality to them. Both sides announced a list of incremental steps forward by restricting some lobbyist access, but avoided tackling the more difficult and more relevant issue of congressional earmarks, as well as necessary oversight and enforcement measures. Contrasted with the genuine enthusiasm for reform that characterized the 1994 campaign season, last week’s announcements lacked any sense of commitment or legitimacy. Voters are smart enough to know the difference.
If there’s a way to display any greater level of indifference, it would be by electing Tom DeLay’s most loyal lieutenant to replace the just-departed Majority Leader. Roy Blunt is not a bad person, but his ascension to DeLay’s old job would send a clear message to the electorate that House Republicans are more interested in protecting the current system than fixing it. By contrast, John Boehner brings with him the outsiders’ zeal that characterized the Gingrich Revolution while John Shadegg carries an updated version of that same spirit.
But Lungren’s crusade is less about the merits of the individual House leaders than about the problems inherent with allowing them to continue in their current positions without even bothering to discuss the need for a potential change of direction. Some of those leaders may deserve to remain in their posts, but assuming the status quo at this point is an invitation to angry voters to turn out a majority that may be losing touch with the reformist spirit that brought them to power twelve years ago.
So Lungren is precisely on point when he asks his fellow Republicans to show the electorate how seriously they take the need to clean up their own House. John Doolittle and the other GOP leaders can certainly run to reclaim their current positions if they like. But putting themselves up for a vote is a good way of showing us — and themselves — that they remember why they came to Washington in the first place.