Dick Armey on the Direction of the GOP

This week Ryan Sager's new book, The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party, hits bookstore shelves. Below is an interview Sager conducted with former Rep. Dick Armey one of the chief architects of the Republican Revolution in the 1990's. Armey assumed the position of majority leader after the Republicans took Congress in 1994 and remained in that post until he retired from the House in January of 2003. Mr. Armey, now chairman of FreedomWorks, sat down in his Washington, D.C., office in November of 2005 with Sager to discuss the present and future of the Republican Party.

Armey: Adrift and rudderless. They've really slipped their moorings. In the aftermath of 9/11, there was a general attitude that permeated the entire government: Money is no object. And that just became infectious across the board. They're completely out of touch with the vision we had in '94 and '95. It just went to hell.

What accounted for the discipline the federal government was able to maintain in the 1990s? Was it just that we had divided government? Why have things fallen apart since then?

When I used to stand up and say "hell no" to Bill Clinton, I was always applauded by all the people I love. When I stood up and said "hell no" to George Bush, I was berated by all the people I love. I'm not sure, it's not clear to me, that Denny [Speaker Dennis Hastert] and [former House majority leader] Tom [DeLay] ever really embraced the vision in the first place, either one of them. Denny's pretty much a parochial politician who believes it's not only your right but probably your duty to bring home the bacon. And Tom is an appropriator.

Was 1994 an anti-government rebellion by voters, or an anti-Washington rebellion?

It was an anti-Democrat rebellion. Our basic thesis was that we could find 10 things that had high standing with the American people that were demonstrably kept off the floor for even a vote by the Democrats. The whole point of the Contract was if you give us the majority we will vote on these things in the first 100 days. People say the Democrats should do a Contract. The problem is they can't find 10 things that the American people embrace that we keep off the floor. They can find 10 things that their party embraces that we keep off the floor. But they don't have the majority party in America.

What went wrong with the government shutdowns in 1995 and 1996? How did the Republicans miscalculate?

Newt's position was, presidents get blamed for shutdowns, and he cited Ronald Reagan. My position was, Republicans get blamed for shutdowns. I argued that it is counterintuitive to the average American to think that the Democrat wants to shut down the government. They're the advocates of the government. It is perfectly logical to them that Republicans would shut it down, because we're seen as antithetical to government. I said if there's a shutdown, we're going to get the blame. Here's the other thing: You're heard saying rather boldly in June that you're going to shut the government in the fall. You've set the stage for the press to report that the Republicans are now doing in October what they said they'd do in June. Even if, in fact, they thought it was the right strategy to shut down the government, they should have kept their mouths shut about it. The fact of the matter is what happened was, they honestly believed that Clinton would not shut down the government. It was a fiasco that was harmful and dangerous to us because we made it that way.

Just keep our mouth shut, go through the year, stick to our guns, stand quietly on the ground that we had, live by continuing resolutions until we break them. What we did was we precipitated a political confrontation, and we got our butts kicked. If we had just quietly done the nation's business, and let it drag into the next year -- it did anyway -- I think Clinton would have come along. What you had to do with Bill Clinton was don't give him any schmooze. The quiet "no," this is what he couldn't deal with. If you take me out in the back street with Muhammad Ali and give me a gun, I'll shoot him, right, and nobody will notice, but if you let me get in the ring with him, he's gonna kick the tar outta me. Clinton, if you give him the political arena, he's a Muhammad Ali. Newt thought he was big enough and smart enough and strong enough to handle Clinton, so that's what it was really about. Newt was really swelled up with -- the speaker's a very important job, I'm a really important man, I'm as important as the president. He had a compelling need to prove that the speaker was as big as, or bigger than, the president. A lot of it was naïveté on our part. We'd never been there before. Quite frankly, I look back at it, we did a remarkable job for people who'd never been in control of anything. But the idea that we could meet Clinton on his ground and beat him, I just think was naïve on our part.

The criteria of choice in just about every behavior you see in Congress today is politics. Where in the hell did this Terri Schiavo thing come from? There's not a conservative, Constitution-loving, separation-of-powers guy alive in the world that could have wanted that bill on the floor. That was pure, blatant pandering to [Focus on the Family President] James Dobson. That's all that was. It was silly, stupid, and irresponsible. Nobody serious about the Constitution would do that. But the question was will this energize our Christian conservative base for the next election.

The biggest thing Hillary's got to worry about is her health care plan. Clinton was president for eight years, was there anything that scared you? Yeah, the health care plan. But she will sound more like us than we do when she gets on that campaign trail. Frankly, she's standing on pretty dang good ground. Hillary winks at the left, they get it. Ryan Sager is the author of The Elephant in the Room. He can be reached at ryan@realclearpolitics.com.

Lessee...

1) Support Conservative Republicans and get the party going the right direction?

or

2) Oppose ALL Republicans and get a Democratic Congress?

#1 may be difficult and painful at times, but what would #2 lead to?

a) Surrender in the war on terror and resultant massive attacks on our homeland. (Libertarians would be split on this)
b) Homosexual marriage (Libertarians would love this)
c) Tax increases and a resulting economic downturn (Libertarians would hate this)
d) Massive growth in Govt..healthcare, SSI, etc. (Libertarians would really hate this)

Seems like when all is said and done, even the libertarians in the party should understand that it is better to beat up on electred republicans, than to have democrats in power.

The GOP is full-steam astern.

Yep. Agree wholeheartedly. The GOP can handle difference of opinion and conflict and be stronger, unlike the fascist left's, totalitarian thinking and actions. We will only continue to gain more steam in the years ahead.

Oops. Thought you said full steam ahead as opposed to astern (which I believe means backwards, or behind a vessel--according to dictionary definition). I am not a boating gal, so the pragmatic application of this definition is a bit difficult to apply. But if this is what astern means, I clearly disagree with the idea that Republicans are going backwards or falling behind a vessel.

This party overtime is going to dominate for decades to come. We may have set backs, yes. Even stern lessons! Just you watch. The alternative? Massive poo.

I clearly disagree with the idea that Republicans are going backwards

The question posed to Dick Armey specifically addressed the GOP's commitment to small government.

My point was and remains that the party is not, as Mr. Armey described it, "adrift and rudderless"; rather, the GOP is growing government.

Thus, as I see it, with regard to its commitment to smaller government, the party is running full-steam astern (backward).

Then again, "adrift and rudderless" could be true, if one wants to make a case that some external force (the Democrat party?) is the strong current causing the good ship Small Government to go backward.

But so what?

Who reads books about a moving dynamic target?

Plotters, planners, effete snobs,liberals,holier than thou types looking for ammunition their own limited imaginations are barren of, MSM types with low IQs, mental patients...you know...the lame and the halt:

Democrats.

Why do you Wet Pants Republicans persist in suggesting that ALL Republicans are being opposed and in danger of losing their seats?

On FR's own (unscientific) poll, 75% of FReepers believe that the GOP will continue to hold both houses of Congress. Is it possible that you fear the chicken will come home to roost after years of ignoring conservative values?

I don't want the Dems to take over, but that doesn't mean that I will support worthless RINOs. Now, having said all that, why do think that Bush will sign into law anything that a Dem Congress will approve? Are you afraid that he won't oppose them?

If so, then maybe Bush is part of the problem.

If it wasn't so serious, you (including Bush and the GOP's various alphabet groups) guys would be funny. You fight to reelect the very guys -- the RINOs -- who are the ones who render us ineffective in advancing Bush's agenda.

Whoaa...I say... Whoooooooaaaa!!!

I am not saying "Fight to support RINOs" and you will never hear such a think cross my lips (ok, well fingers when I am typing)

I was saying that we must fight HARD for the conservatives and let the RINOs graze but don't kill the RINOS... at least not during a main election.

RINO hunting should be primary sport only.

If I jumped too fast, I apologize, but I am tired of the GOP apologists.

As for RINOs only being in season in the primary, that's a RINO/incumbent talking point. Keeping them does more damage in more ways than most people think.

Not only does it entrench them and make it harder to remove them, they obstruct the conservative agenda while advancing their liberal one. Have 'Republicans' endorse liberal ideas gives political cover to the liberals and allows the MSM to point to conservatives and call them 'evil', 'radicals', and extremists.

RINOs should be in season all the time and be removed at any opportunity. Look at Specter and Chafee as examples. Look at the Democrat support that they both garner in the general AND the primary races. Specter came to Pittsburgh 2 years ago to a Jewish businessman meeting. He pleaded with them to switch registration and vote for him in the primary. The only problem was he was speaking to Jewish Republicans.

If we don't take them out in the general, we only weaken ourselves in the long run. Don't worry, this hardline approach won't catch on all at once and everywhere so all the RINOs won't be dumped right away and throw control to the Dems. But it must be started. It must be done. We can't have a small minority of liberals who pretend to be Republican blocking, or even setting, the GOP / conservative agenda

I would rather shun them while we have leadership, than let a Democrat take their seat.

The Republican party is really bad about giving these guys any influence or authority. Take Spectre and the judiciary as an example.

But letting Dems take their seat does not solve the problem.

What we should do is

a) Give them no authority within the Congress
b) Grow a replacement and then support them in the primary
c) If they still win the primary, their constituency is clearly left leaning so we should let them have the job (graze, not support) and work on the next time around.

You keep saying that you love me then I find you in the arms of another.

We've followed the 'the primary is the only time' mantra long enough and look where it brought us.

I will not vote for any RINO any more than I would a dem. It's the same thing.

BTW, the GOP doesn't have the stones to enforce party discipline. Specter is the prime example as you said. Do you know that he is in line to chair the Appropriations Committee also next term?

BTW2, the only reason that Specter is supporting the GOP cause now is because if we do lose the majority, he loses his chairmanship(s). That's all he cares about.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.