A lesson from the fall of Kevin McCarthy

In an unprecedented turn of events, the House of Representatives witnessed the ouster of a Speaker for the first time. Political commentators and historians alike have struggled to understand this event and the problems it raises. But one thing is clear so far. That is, the constant threat of secession motions and a weakened party leadership are weakening rather than strengthening parliament. The time has come to consider whether a more powerful speaker could serve Congress better. Such a chair would not only make Congress less accountable to the people, but would make it even more accountable.

Those sympathetic to the House Freedom Caucus may object that power in the House is too concentrated and that the dominance of the Speaker makes it a top-down, polarized institution. But recent events have proven that the opposite is true, and that what we need is more power in the hands of the Speaker, not less.

When this motion was last used in 1910 against “imperial” Chairman Joseph Cannon, the Republican Party was as divided as it is today. The key difference was the fact that Democrats were less progressive than Republicans at the time. A key divide was between progressives and conservatives within the Republican Party. Progressive Republicans believed the party was inherently corrupt and undemocratic. Like many Freedom Caucus members, they believed that most of our laws were the product of interest groups using their influence to control government. But with the power of political parties a century ago, no one could have dreamed of a minority taking over the entire party.

It’s not difficult to understand why. The power held by political parties in 1910 is unimaginable today. Currently, the Speaker can decide on the agenda of the House, but does not have the power to influence members of the House to vote in favor of it. In contrast, the Cannon era was marked by a Speaker of the House who wielded far greater powers. This power was based on his three pillars: the right of approval, the power to elect the chairperson and members, and the control of the Rules Committee. These powers gave the speaker the power to regulate which bills were brought to the floor, decide who could speak on those bills, and set the rules for deliberation. Speakers often used these powers to advance the party’s agenda and ensure that the majority party could enact voter mandates in Congress. They also used them to distance progressives from the policy-making process. Conservative cannons consistently suppressed the influence of progressives within their own party.

For more FOX News opinions, click here

This situation only changed when George Norris, a progressive Republican from Nebraska, introduced a resolution stripping the chair of control over the Rules Committee, marking a significant shift in the chair’s power. It became a point. On St. Patrick’s Day, 1910, when many of Cannon’s supporters were partying, Norris took a chance and announced his determination.

Debate over the Norris resolution raged for nearly three days. Norris and his allies appealed to the entire House, and Cannon was defeated 182-163. Norris’ resolution passed, removing the chair from the Rules Committee and losing his authority to make committee assignments.

Republicans consider changing rules to avoid ‘chaos’ during House votes

The impact was profound. The power of the House of Representatives changed dramatically, giving each member the freedom to act independently of their party’s agenda and increasing their ability to block legislation. This also opened many avenues for lobbyists and interest groups to influence legislation. In the midst of this chaos, leadership had to come from somewhere, and that was the executive branch, and the president stepped in to take control of the House’s agenda-setting process.

So why should we care about the power of the speaker? The American Congress is fragmented and gridlocked, and this system allows members to form majority coalitions and encourage members to support a common agenda. It is not easy to persuade. The recurring theme of a Republican House speaker’s term ending due to inability to control the Freedom Caucus is a notable example. Freedom Caucus members are rightly concerned about an unresponsive government pursuing narrow interests over the welfare of its citizens. But history has proven that political parties are essential for keeping government in check, scrutinizing administration, and enforcing the will of the majority. Weak speakers fail to accomplish any of these important purposes.

However, any serious proposal to strengthen the chairmanship requires consideration of more fundamental reforms to our party that must be carried out in conjunction with strengthening the chairmanship. The main reason the speaker was an “emperor” in the late 1800s and his early 1900s was because political parties were strong outside of parliament. They control candidate nominations through party conventions, rely on broad sponsorship and funding to build loyal followings at the local and state level, and use small differences internally to work together on the issues that matter most. Worked to overcome.

In other words, the real reason House members are weak these days is that the underlying political parties are weak. We need to rebuild our political parties from the ground up. As Daniel Schlozman and Sam Rosenfeld have argued, they are “hollow” and cut off from the voters who provide their primary source of support. Until that deeper structural problem is resolved, intra-parliamentary solutions alone will not be sufficient.

As political scientists have long understood, the American political system cannot function effectively without a strong two-party system, so it is important to address its deeper structural issues. We need strong leaders who can build, sustain, and lead coalitions. Such leadership would enable Congress to take back power from the executive branch, build consensus on policies that the public broadly supports, and work together across the aisle to forge compromises.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Some might argue that strengthening political parties would bring back the corruption associated with the Gilded Age. The problem with this opposite is that the weakening of political parties has not led to less corruption in American politics today. However, this has led to corruption and the overall government’s lack of responsibility to the people.

Paradoxically, Americans tend to think that political parties are the problem and the source of polarization, political conflict, and dysfunction. In fact, the best solution to these problems is if political parties can rebuild themselves as great institutions that build broad coalitions and implement moderate and responsible reforms in response to elections.