Here’s my latest column in the N.Y. Post (and my first as an outside contributor, as opposed to editorial board member, yikes):

PRESIDENT Bush won’t lead on the issues that matter to conservatives,
so the Republicans in the House must. But will they? Yesterday, in
electing a successor to disgraced former Majority Leader Tom DeLay,
they gave their answer: a solid … maybe.

Full rub after the jump.

A House Renewed
By Ryan Sager

PRESIDENT Bush won’t lead on the issues that matter to conservatives, so the Republicans in the House must. But will they? Yesterday, in electing a successor to disgraced former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, they gave their answer: a solid … maybe.

Newly elected Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) certainly wasn’t the status quo candidate going into the leadership race: That honor fell to Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a DeLay deputy whom House conservatives viewed as too close to the sleaze of the last few years.

But Boehner also wasn’t the candidate of true reform. That banner was carried by Rep. John Shadegg, a rock-ribbed small-government conservative from Arizona who voted against the No Child Left Behind Act, the 2003 Medicare prescription-drug bill, the 2002 farm-bailout bill and the pork-laden 2005 highway bill — in other words, pretty much every big mistake the Bush administration has made so far.

Boehner, instead, was just enough of a reformer. And having previously been in the Republican leadership under Newt Gingrich, he wasn’t a complete outsider.

“Experience”: That’s the one word former Majority Leader Dick Armey (who held the position right before DeLay) used yesterday to explain to me his endorsement of Boehner over Shadegg. “At this point, they really needed somebody that could pick up this job and put it together,” he said. “You’ve got to hit the ground running.”

During the course of the race, all three candidates embraced platforms of “reform,” showing just how worried many members are and just how much sway the conservatives of the Republican Study Committee (whose chairman, Mike Pence, endorsed Shadegg) have come to hold.

There’s been a growing sense since Bush came to Washington in 2001 that the Republican majority has lost its way — passing bad bills that expand the size and scope of government (and are loaded down with favors to special interests) to avoid picking a fight with the president or rocking the boat during election years.

Pence led a conservative rebellion when Bush asked for billions of dollars in new spending to clean up after Hurricane Katrina, without offering any cuts to offset the cost. Now Boehner’s election may serve to help further turn things around.

To gauge whether they’re getting back on track, watch whether Boehner delivers quickly on reforming “earmarks” — individual pork projects requested by members, the number of which has risen 10-fold in 10 years, from 1,400 to 14,000.

Recent earmarks, notes the Heritage Foundation, have included a therapeutic horseback-riding program; a grant to combat teen “goth” culture in Blue Springs, Mo.; an indoor rainforest in Iowa — and, of course, Alaska’s now-(in)famous “Bridge to Nowhere,” the star earmark (out of 6,400) of last year’s $300 billion highway bill.

Boehner has promised a crackdown on earmarks. There is also significant momentum for lobbying reform and general budget-process reform.

But more important than these somewhat cosmetic changes is whether a House led by Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner can bring the agenda back around to the GOP’s core goal of smaller government.

Bush made it clear in Tuesday night’s State of the Union Address that he has no plan or intention to lead — at least not when it comes to the home front, and issues such as Social Security, energy policy or getting a handle on an out-of-control federal budget.

Could House Republicans move forward serious tax reform, such as of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is going to slam millions of new middle-class taxpayers this year (particularly in New York)? Could they finally open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration? Could they make a serious dent in spending?

Armey, for his part, thinks it’s best when the GOP House, rather than the president, sets the agenda, as it did in 1995-’97. “When the House takes the lead, you start off with a mark that’s more conservative and more appealing to small-government conservatives.”

Yet he doesn’t seem optimistic about any return to the “spirit of ’94” (much discussed among House Republicans these last few weeks). “I wouldn’t hazard a prediction that we would diminish the size of government,” he tells me. “But maybe we could do a better job holding the line.”

After five years of Bush, conservatives’ sights are certainly set lower than they used to be. But at least now they seem to be training upward.

Ryan Sager (editor@rhsager.com) is writing a book on the future of the Republican Party, due out in September.