JIM WRIGHT’S CAPITOL PUNISHMENT

Jim Wright was great political theater. These days our political discourse is usually reduced to 10-second sound bites and 30- second TV spots; politicians lob them at each other like hand grenades. On Wednesday, however, in a biblical display of righteous indignation, Wright took a full hour to defend his honor before the House of Representatives.

It was grand political speechifying in the brow-mopping, gallus-snapping tradition. For one last glorious moment, Wright of Texas was truly the Speaker of the House. “I’ll tell you what,” he said to his colleagues at the climax of his speech, “I’m going to make you a proposition. Let me give you back this job you gave to me as a propitiation for all of this season of bad will that has grown up among us.”

Wright sacrificed his career. Will the political gods be propitiated? Not likely. Wright called for an end to the “mindless cannibalism” of national politics. “It is grievously hurtful to our society,” he said, “when vilification becomes an accepted form of political debate, when negative campaigning becomes a full-time occupation, when members of each party become self-appointed vigilantes carrying out personal vendettas against members of the other party.”

Rep. Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), the man likely to succeed Wright as Speaker, calls it “politics by ethics inquiry.” “There is almost a Roman games spirit abroad,” Foley said. “You pick up the front page and see who has been devoured by the lions today.” In his inaugural address, George Bush lamented “a certain divisiveness” in U.S. politics. Bush said: “We have seen the hard looks and heard the statements in which not each other’s ideas are challenged, but each other’s motives.”

What everyone seems unhappy about is the use of ethics as a political weapon. But they will continue to use it. The reason is simple: It works. The Democrats succeeded in destroying a U.S. President on ethics charges in 1974. Now the GOP has used ethics to destroy a Speaker of the House.

Consider the 1988 presidential election. The two people who had the greatest influence on the outcome were Donna Rice and Willie Horton. It was the nastiest, most superficial campaign on record, and it drew one of the lowest voter turnouts in U.S. history. But every politician learned a lesson: negative campaigns work. Everybody hates them. But we’re going to see more.

Politics follows the same rule as the entertainment industry. If it worked once, try it again. There will be another Wright just as surely as there will be another “Rocky.” In fact, Jim Wright was the sequel to his own story. To everyone’s surprise, House Majority Whip Tony Coelho (D-Merced) quit before Wright did.

Democrats seem to be dropping like flies. Washington is deluged with rumors, and government is conducted in an atmosphere of suspicion. For example, Democrats were infuriated last week by Justice Department leaks concerning a possible investigation of Rep. William H. Gray III (D-Pa.), a candidate to succeed Coelho as whip. They assume the leaks were part of a GOP plot to “get” Gray.

The man most responsible for feeding the Democrats’ paranoia is Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). Gingrich was the man who dared to file ethics charges against the Speaker. He was rewarded this year when his Republican colleagues made him minority whip, the party’s second-ranking leadership position. Two months ago, Gingrich predicted Wright would be out of office by June. Wright resigned May 31.

On television last month, Gingrich said, “I think the country is going to be further shocked when the news media digs deeper to discover that it doesn’t stop with Coelho and Wright, that it goes on to more and more people--at least another nine or 10, maybe more than that.” That sounds like McCarthyism--”I have here in my hand a list. . . .”

But it has the Democrats frightened. Gingrich has made no secret of his objective. He wants Republicans to get control of the House, where they have been the minority party for 35 years. The problem is that members of the House have become invulnerable. In the last two elections, 98% of incumbents won.

To frustrated Republicans, the Democratic majority has become encrusted and arrogant. The Republicans have tried everything to dislodge them. They try to attack Democrats on the issues--but the voters ignore the issues. They try to expose Democrats as liberals--but the voters discount the charges. GOP House candidates even tried to ride Ronald Reagan’s coattails. But while Reagan swept a GOP majority into the Senate, he could never make headway in the House.

Now Gingrich wants to use ethics as a weapon. As Coelho explained, “Newt has said the only way for Republicans to get control is to destroy the institution, tear it down and then rebuild it.” The idea is to accuse the Democrats of ruling the House through a system of entrenched corruption. If people see enough corruption, they will get the idea that the whole system has to be overthrown--and the Democratic majority will be swept away.

Is there a system of entrenched corruption in the House? Sort of. But it’s different from the old days, when congressmen were on the take and a lot of cash changed hands. Then it was called bribery. These days it’s called fund raising--and it’s legal.

A congressman has to raise big money to stay in the political game. Even if he doesn’t steal the money, the process corrupts him in a more subtle way. It reorders his priorities.

Coelho was the man who perfected the system that kept the Democrats in power during the 1980s. After his resignation, he said that his greatest achievement in politics was “to keep the Reagan Revolution from succeeding” by raising the money to protect Democratic incumbents.

If the Democrats are smart, they will take advantage of the current ethics frenzy and lead the reform effort. The honorarium system has to go, with or without a pay raise. And the system of campaign finance has to be reformed, with or without public financing.

Democrats have to seize the high ground simply to protect themselves. Republicans clearly intend to run a national campaign against “Democratic corruption” in 1990. Lee Atwater, chairman of the Republican National Committee, is demanding that Congress vote “up or down” on the charges against Wright and Coelho. He wants every Democrat recorded so the GOP can use those votes against them in the 1990 campaign.

It may be risky for Republicans to use the corruption issue. The GOP has ethics problems of its own. Last month, a Republican congressman from Ohio was convicted of sex offenses against a minor. A former GOP congressman from Georgia is on trial for lying about his role in a scheme to launder illegal drug money. A Michigan Republican gave his live-in girlfriend a $28,000-a-year job on a House committee staff. Not the least important, Democrats have asked the House Ethics Committee to investigate a scheme whereby political supporters contributed money to help Gingrich promote his book.

Does anyone really believe Republicans are purer than Democrats? Voters don’t. In a news poll last month, 79% said they didn’t see much difference between the two parties “when it comes to the level of ethics and honesty among politicians.”

Moreover, Wright’s resignation removes one big issue from the 1990 campaign: Wright. Wright was an easy target. He did not project sincerity. He could never shake the label of “political snake-oil salesman” given to him by David A. Stockman.

Foley, on the other hand, will not be an easy target. He has a reputation for fairness and integrity. He is respected by members on both sides of the aisle. Foley epitomizes the the gentlemanly tradition of Congress. Wright talked about that tradition in his speech last week. “In 1955,” he recalled wistfully, “this was a place where a man’s word was his bond, and his honor and the truth of what he said to you were assumed.”

What Wright did not recall was that, under the old gentlemen’s rules, members protected each other and pretended not to notice little foibles like drinking, womanizing and skimming cash on the side. The old rules are gone, and a politician can’t do those things any more. If he does, the press will report it, and his opponents will use it against him. Congress is undoubtedly better off for those changes. But it will be better off still if Foley can restore some of the old civility.

Democrats have one sure-fire strategy for deflecting a GOP ethics offensive. They can run against Congress. How in the world can a member of Congress run against Congress? He says, “Just send me to Washington, and I’ll clean up the mess.” In last month’s poll, only 39% gave “members of Congress” a positive rating on ethics and honesty. But 69% gave their own member of Congress a positive rating on ethics and honesty. See the difference?

In the end, there is only one way to keep politicians from using ethics as a political weapon. And that is to prove in next year’s congressional election that the issue does not work.