Regardless of whatever electoral damage it may inflict in the
short run, Jim, the destruction of Republican scoundrels is
ultimately good for the GOP.
Not (merely) to engage in shameless self-promotion, but the
differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to
scandals and corruption was something I had to ponder at length
while working on
Donkey Cons. The inescapable fact is that Republicans are
less likely to engage in corrupt activity because their electoral
base won't stand for it.
For better or worse, the GOP's core support comes from decent,
respectable middle-class people with small-town sensibilities --
the American bourgeoisie, if you will -- and if there's
one thing those people can't stand, it's a politician on the take.
If Republicans don't purge their own scoundrels, the electorate
will do it for them. Republicans often complain that the Democrats
commit similar offenses (and worse) without seeming to pay so heavy
a penalty. This is demonstrably true, but misses the point.
One of the strongest and most traditional appeals of the GOP is
the promise of honest government, a contrast to the sleazy
wheeler-dealer ways that have been the hallmark of the Democratic
Party since the founding of Tammany Hall more than two centuries
ago. When a Republican goes crooked, he should be condemned as a
carrier of the corruption virus and summarily cast out, lest the
disease infect the entire GOP.
ADDENDUM: Let me hasten to add that I'm
not advocating a goody-two-shoes approach to governance. There is a
difference between a free lunch and criminal corruption, and there
is a certain truth in
Jesse Unruh's most famous saying.