MISSOURI COMMENTARY: WHAT'S NEEDED: MONEY, TIMING, PLAN

There is no way to minimize the impact of Newt Gingrich on contemporary American politics. He and Ronald Reagan stand as the great invigorators of the modern Republican party.

Reagan persuasively advocated the Republican creed of lower taxes and less government. He delivered mightily on the first and failed on the second. With gargantuan increases in defense spending but significantly less revenue coming in, deficits skyrocketed. The national debt grew from $1 trillion (George Washington through Jimmy Carter) to $3 trillion during Reagan's eight years. Reagan made only dutiful thrusts at trying to cut back on the role of the federal government and made no effort whatsoever at submitting a balanced budget.

Today Gingrich has donned Reagan's mantle with a call for more tax cuts and with a fervor to dismantle as much he can of the governmental apparatus created by Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Carter. Roosevelt he views as a political hero not for what FDR created, but for the skill with which he created it. Gingrich sees himself as a political craftsman out of the Roosevelt mold with the talents necessary to function in the media ago.

As a younger member of the House, Gingrich became a political bomb thrower intent on scuttling old-time Democratic power brokers who had developed egregiously sloppy habits. House Speaker Jim Wright was his favorite target and Gingrich was Wright's undoing. Democrats loathed Gingrich and the more senior let's-get-along Republicans in the House didn't trust him. But the younger Republicans admired his guts, stamina and inventiveness and made him their bold political field commander.

Three things were necessary to execute the revolution: money, timing and a game plan.

Money is the grease that oils the machines of American elections and political decision-making. The two national parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are relics of history. The parties remain mostly as conduits to collect money and as hosts of nominating conventions to anoint presidential candidates already selected in primary elections. That's about all there is.

Prior to 1994, the pattern of political giving by corporate PACs was tilted in favor of Democratic House incumbents. After all, Congressional Democrats seemed to be permanently in power and they controlled the legislative process. Better to give to a certain winner and gain access than to give to a certain loser and be left with empty philosophical satisfaction.

Gingrich and others working with him broke the Democrats' money grip. He persuaded many fat cats and fat PACs to cease giving to people they disliked and start giving to people with whom they philosophically agreed. As the Clinton presidency got off to a stumbling start, sizable money began flowing into various Republican campaign committees. These millions were later redistributed to GOP House candidates in targeted districts where polling showed that Republicans had a fighting chance.

That brings us to the timing factor. Bill Clinton came to office with the least robust presidential mandate in modern times. His political honeymoon quickly evaporated. Even powerful presidents take heavy hits in off-year elections, e.g., Roosevelt in 1938, Reagan in 1982. This historic trend of off-year elections being against the White House coupled with Clinton's vulnerabilities made 1994 the year of opportunity for Gingrich.

Now, we get to plan: the Contract With America. Gingrich candidly admits that he and his allies sat down with Republican pollsters and picked items that the voters clearly wanted: term limits, balance the budget constitutional amendment, welfare reform, loss regulation, tax cuts and others. The plan was to band all Republican House candidates together in a common bond glued with a pledge to produce within 100 days.

There you have it: money, timing and a plan. It took all three, and Gingrich put it together.

For the congressional Democrats, the future isn't bright. Corporate PAC and lobby money has found a new, more ideologically compatible home. In 1996, Democratic challengers, short on money, while running against the 73 first-term Republican House members, will find it difficult to mount effective campaigns.

Electoral spending reform, never a popular item with incumbents of both parties, is deader than dead. The political race to the checkbook goes to the powerful: to Gingrich and the Republicans. In political terms, Gingrich's most far-reading achievement will not necessarily be the Contract With America, but more likely his lasting persuasion of well-heeled Republican financial sources to cease giving money to Democrats

~Tom Eagleton is a former U.S. senator from Missouri and a columnist for the Pulitzer Publishing Co.