Obama Is Right About Changing Government

"The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside." [1]  Though I may have arrived at the same conclusion much earlier, by another route, and in another context, I have to concede that the President spoke the truth; which, in itself, is noteworthy.



The Republicans and some conservatives were quick to challenge his statement -- not so much on grounds of veracity but on those of political advantage -- because he was clearly making an excuse for himself.  Messianic promises in campaign mode have come to this: feet of clay.  Not his fault, of course, it's just that the dark forces of the world cannot be outmatched.  But, however inadvertently and driven by whatever motives his conclusion is valid.

Government [2]  can, at best, facilitate change when it finds itself under sufficient pressure from the electorate.  I could argue the point at length, but I don't see the need for it, considering that we have before us such a clear  example, now in operation.  The Tea Party.

The Republican Party bears considerable responsibility for American government's decline into dysfunction.  Its fecklessness, acquiescence and accommodation while the Democrats have, almost to a member, veered to the hard left are at last being challenged.  Whether the party establishment survives in tact is not yet known, but it is certain that their armor of arrogance is suffering a few dents.  While Republican fundraising (fueled by fear and disgust with the present regime) is doing quite well, untold monies are being shunted around the RNC.  Jim DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund in a fine example, as is a growing trend of conservatives making contributions directly to candidates instead of trusting them to the party.  Candidates in contested races who are supported by the Tea Party have (as I recall) a success rate of something north of eighty per cent.  It has become apparent to all Republicans that if one has a record (or a platform) of political actions and speech conservative enough to earn Tea Party support, his chances of long-term success are much enhanced.  As a fillip, he is to some extent relieved of the endless and onerous burdens of fundraising. [3]

I return to the subject of the essay with a proposed thought experiment to make my case.  Look at what appears to be an emergent transformation of Republicans in the Congress.  Imagine that there was never a Tea Party movement, and we are witnesses to the following scene: John Boehner, looking serious and determined is addressing his fellow Republicans.

Ladies and gentlemen, the time has come when we must uphold, in all that we do here, conservative, constitutional principles without regard to political (and Beltway society) consequences.  Our job now is to lead -- not follow -- the party establishment and their consultants and operatives.  I will brook no argument. Ladies and gentlemen, we will change forever the very nature of the Republican party.  Let's be about it!

Obama got it right this time, didn't he?

-------------------
1.  Video (courtesy Big Government) here for context.

2.  The inability to change from within is generally true of any institutionalized group once it has become too big to succeed.  I first came to understand the concept when I saw it articulated by John Z. DeLorean in J. Patrick Wright's book, On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors.  DeLorean, then a rising star at GM, had come to see that, in the executive suites of the corporation, self-absorption had irreversibly replaced concern for GM's prosperity.  The auto-maker's chief product had shifted from cars to careers.  The rule is not absolute, though.  I am aware of a few transformational changes led by exceptional individuals within large corporations.  They are rare, and they seldom outlast the persons responsible for making them.
Regarding government I have to add the obvious caveat that a tyrannical one can change from within, but only in the direction of greater tyranny.
3.  Here, it seems to me, we have a variant of "pay to play", in which cash is replaced by behavior; adherence to first principles.  The magic of the scheme is that the Republican establishment is replaced by a kind of "conservative club" enjoying a measure of job security and prestige not found in the party at large who will not fail to notice the benefits of membership.  For the wayward safe seats will no longer be seen as safe.