The Republican majority in the 109th Congress is entering its third distinct phase. The first was marked by loyalty to president and party, the second by a conservative populist independence, and now it is adopting pragmatism and self-preservation as its mantra.

Just 15 months ago, President Bush, brimming with confidence from his reelection victory, challenged the 109th to do great things — reform Social Security, pass fundamental tax reform — in essence to build on legislative victories from the previous Congress but to surpass them in boldness and scope and to lay a foundation for a permanent Republican majority.

The game plan was to be the same as it had been in the previous Congress, except with more verve because of the increased majorities. Bush would set the agenda. The House would tinker with, but essentially pass, Bush’s proposals, and deals would be cut with Senate moderates, with the president getting 80 percent of what he had proposed. The plan worked again and again, on tax cuts, on homeland security, on taxes cuts again.

The president was a winner, so each successive legislative battle was waged with a sense of invincibility. House leaders were so skillful in eking out narrow wins that they confidently took close votes to the floor, knowing they could twist a few arms to get to 218.

But a funny thing happened. The president’s fortunes declined along with the public’s confidence in the Iraq war. And Congress became mired in a legislative vacuum. There was no Social Security reform plan to haggle over in committee, no sign of tax reform, no common high purpose shared by president and Congress.

In the first half of 2005, Republicans in Congress were not employed as loyal foot soldiers in a legislative ground game. Instead, they sat, debated Terri Schiavo’s fate and watched a president lose his winner’s mantle.

In an alternate universe, had the president remained popular, and had his proposals been manageable enough to generate congressional activity, perhaps the team spirit of president and Congress would have continued. But in reality it is rare for a president and Congress to be on the same page for so long, even if they are of the same political party. And members of Congress, whose independence was simmering under the surface of unity, began to feel their oats.

The second, independence phase began with the Republican budget hawks’ insurgence in the summer of 2005. Without the imperative of party unity, it was not hard for groups of members to see that banding together against their leaders and president could force action. The past nine months have seen a series of revolts by mostly conservative but occasionally moderate back benchers over Harriet Miers, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, immigration and Dubai Ports World, to name a few.

But this period of visceral autonomy is drawing to a close. Having gotten rebellion out of their system, and seeing the handwriting of a tough midterm election result ahead, Republicans see a need to show accomplishment and to take issues off the table. This can be seen in a greater willingness to work with moderates on energy issues, a determination to pass some form of lobbying reform, the likelihood of some modest tax-cut extensions and fixes and a stated desire to cut a deal on immigration reform (although the differences on immigration may be too hard to bridge).

The president is no longer the chief player in this era; it is congressional leaders who are eyeing the August recess as the deadline for enacting their agenda. Their hope is that accomplishment will help them weather the storm of the midterm elections.

Fortier is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.