Washington. -- Given the tendency of the American press and public to focus on personalities of politicians, it is not surprising that House Speaker-to-be Newt Gingrich of Georgia has emerged as hero of the Republican takeover of Congress.
Mr. Gingrich is a rags-to-riches story. Just a few years ago, he was a Republican back-bencher distinguished by disdain for his party's leadership. He was a fountain of untested ideas and flamboyant criticism. Now he sits as third man from the presidency, pursued by book publishers with big checkbooks, about to impose his hard-edged theories on the nation.
Mr. Gingrich has captured the anti-Washington fervor of this era. He's an astute political weatherman, keen to direction and intensity of the winds. But to focus exclusively on him is to miss this portentously epochal moment.
The United States has gone through several sea changes in the tide affecting the location of government power. The strong-central- government model created by George Washington was replaced by Thomas Jefferson's emphasis on states' rights and government closest to the people.
That lasted until the Civil War and the re-emergence of a strong federal government, coinciding with the rise of industrialism. Abuses of industrialism brought a fresh sea change toward federal regulation. That carried through Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. It bore an ever-louder message that Washington knew best what was right for the country.
Gradually, Washington's regulations touched millions of individuals. Environmental-protection laws are a classic example. What government regulators see as the appropriate way to save the spotted owl, the fish stock, clean air, wetlands, wilderness and potential offshore oil drilling areas may -- and increasingly does -- collide with jobs and profits.
So as Washington is seen as a heavy-handed bureaucrat, the sea changes again. The change originates not so much at the top, where Mr. Gingrich resides, but in the people and their daily lifestyles.
As the nation changed from blue-collar labor to a more individualistic and competitive high-tech work force, hostility grew against a federal government that greeted the successful with higher taxes, rewarded unproductive people with government services, and seemed to poke its nose into such private events as hiring and promotion, work-site safety and smoking regulations, and on-the-job harassment.
While some welcomed government's growing role as protector of the public good, many didn't. That helped bring about the sea change represented by Mr. Gingrich and his anti-government force.
There's a counter-argument to all this. It goes: next month's switch from Democratic to Republican control of Congress comes about primarily because the November 8 voting pattern was distorted. The angry and alienated voted; beneficiaries of a strong federal government did not. The answer is to motivate the pro-government base.
The Rev. Jesse Jackson sounds this message. He blames President Clinton and other Democratic leaders for failing to energize the Democratic Party's base with an even larger big government. Examples: health-care reform and income redistribution.
But the president, turning a deaf ear to Mr. Jackson, accepts the sea change. He has turned away from bigger and more regulatory government to the dismantling of government, starting with the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
This is a critical moment for Democrats. If there is a change under way toward less power in Washington, Democrats better adjust. Otherwise, Mr. Gingrich and his anti-government force may begin a long domination of the U.S. political agenda.
Lawrence M. O'Rourke is a columnist for the McClatchy News Service.