A Weak Speaker Is a Good Step Toward a Stronger Congress

The chamber has operated on a top-down approach for too long.

By
75
Speaker Nancy Pelosi holds the gavel after ending the 117th Congress. (Photo by Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images.)

It’s not exactly a blistering insight into how Washington works, but nothing will get you more praise and respect than being powerful and wielding that power effectively. So, it should be no surprise that Nancy Pelosi finished her tenure as speaker of the House to lavish applause. Many dubbed her the greatest or most effective speaker in modern history—or even ever. 

The contrast with Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s ongoing effort to get elected speaker couldn’t be starker. Firebrands and rabble-rousers in the GOP conference want to weaken McCarthy and the office of speaker. 

I hold no brief for McCarthy the man, but the way much of Washington talks, it’s simply taken for granted that weakening the speakership would be bad. The truth is that a weak speaker might be the best thing for a strong Congress.  

Put another way, the Pelosi model of governance is part of the problem. Yes, she was very effective, but her effectiveness came from a centralized, top-down approach—which has its historical roots in, among other things, Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” reforms in the early ’90s. This approach is one of the drivers of political dysfunction in Washington and the country. 

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
75
By
Comments (75)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Realwoodies

    Interesting take. Thanks.

    Collapse
  2. Colleen

    Thank you... This explains another part of why Congress and the workings of our national government is dysfunctional.

    Collapse
  3. Eric.Lanser

    Interesting. I'd like to see the case built out more that this (strength of the speakership, or HOR procedure in general) plays a role in the weakness of Congress compared to it's historical (and, arguably, Constitutionally intended) strength.

    Collapse
  4. Ag80593420

    This comment has nothing to do with this article. But I feel the need to say: I’m a paying subscriber to The Dispatch, and I’m a paying subscriber to The Bulwark. And I am so dismayed that the Dispatch community of commenters seems so hellbent on disparaging everything and anything Bulwark. The commenters at The Bulwark never disparage The Dispatch. If anything, they’re complimentary. From my perspective Dispatch and Bulwark are for all intents and purposes the same. It’s about anti-Trump, but more importantly anti-Trumpism. The only difference between Dispatch and Bulwark is one was founded by National Review rejects, and the other was founded by Weekly Standard rejects. Historically, is National Review all that much different than Weekly Standard? I don’t think so. But maybe I’m ignorant.

    I’m gonna go out on a limb here, and feel free to tell me why I’m wrong, but…it seems like Dispatch commenters are deluding themselves. For whatever reason they NEED to cling to the idea that “Democrat bad”, no matter how nihilistic and/or radical the entire Republican Party becomes. In my estimation, The Dispatch is holding-out hope that the GOP can magically come back to normal/reality. Whereas The Bulwark has come to terms with the reality that the GOP is irredeemable at this point. Defend the Republican Party however you want, but…the brand is horrifically tainted for future generations.

    If you still think Democrats are as bad as or worse than Republicans, then you’re part of the problem.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Chris Lynch

      I think the question of which party is worse is a matter of taste. I have stopped caring which is worse, because neither one is acceptable to me, and because I live in a Biden +25 uniparty state so my vote doesn't matter.

      I was a free-lister at the Bulwark for about 6 months. I stopped wanting to read it when it seemed to me that some of the writers seemed gleeful when Trump or his retinue did or said something stupid. For me, it read like a constant drumbeat of "we told you so!". I may have been unfair in reading it that way, but my reaction to Trump's incompetence and GOP fealty to him was usually dismay, and under those circumstances, The Bulwark's tone was often just rubbing me the wrong way.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Rajeev

    They need George Santos to be Speaker of the House. Experience is required and according to his resume, he was Speaker of the house for 6 years in the 1990s.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Chris Lynch

      Heh. Well played.

      Collapse
  6. Mullen7724@Gmail.Com

    Be honest, Jonah. You don't like competent politicians when they are progressives, but you do like competent politicians when they are liberal democrats.

    Collapse
    1. ILiu

      Might want to change your username from your email address to something else. Unless that's not really your email. It's in account -> My Details.

      Collapse
  7. Whiskeyman

    Somebody explain to me how the beliefs that we need significantly more top down controlling leadership from political parties(A Jonah suggestion to get better candidates for president and congress) but we need less of it from political parties in the House are squared? Aren't those two ideas things you are proposing Jonah?

    I'm interested for the answers because I posted before thinking it through...

    Collapse
    1. Jjmachin89

      I think there is a prima facie difference between how Congress is meant to run and how a political party should be run. Let's put that aside though, as you point out that it is the party's 'power' in Congress that does this, which is a slightly different question.

      To answer what it seems to me though. Both of those ideas align with the same two goals, one of them enlightened and the other in self-interest. Let's look at the enlightened position first, not because it's the 'nice' one, but because it's short.

      The enlightened position: it's good for the health and longevity of the United States for parties to have both be true.

      The self-interested position: it's good for the health and longevity of each individual party to pursue each individual cause. That may not seem like the case for both instances. One of them is commonly spoken for by our Dear Remnant Leader (that is, strengthening the party leadership in selecting candidates will make it healthier and have a moderating effect), but the other is the one you point out as a competing interest. That is an interesting comparison, but I would argue that they are both aligned for the reason below.

      The enlightened position is the long-term thing that will benefit the self-interested position the most.

      To paraphrase J.G.-the-less-mature (because I dare not imply that the other J.G. is 'the Older'), 'political parties used to raise political capital while in-office, and spend that political capital to get re-elected.' That is, they used to strive to effectively govern so that they could be re-elected.

      The opposite is now largely true: political parties build their political capital in the election by over-promising their capacity (see all the "Day One" legislation promises that are not only impractical, but unconstitutional), then generally making absolute Herschel Schmoeckel Pinchas Yerucham Krustofsky's out of themselves once in office, losing their credibility with all but the most base of their constituents.

      Ultimately, if either party while in power were to effectively and reasonably govern, it would likely lead to a strong tendency towards re-election. Politics is not inherently dysfunctional, ours just is currently.


      Note: I lost the thread on writing this towards the end, it is early here in Austria, what can I say -- I haven't had my morning coffee yet!

      Collapse
      1. Whiskeyman

        I genuinely appreciate your long and thoughtful response. You’ve given me some good things to consider.

        Collapse
  8. Jim S

    Sorry. Ill take a competent Speaker like Pelosi over the current clown show any day of the week.

    The fact that old white Republican dudes can’t seem to stop running her down is just proof of how effective she was.

    Her style was no different from Boehnor or Ryan except the part where she actually accomplished things while they couldn’t even keep the government open.

    Collapse
    1. Randall Briggs

      In Jonah's defense, on last night's Dispatch Live podcast, Jonah did include Newt Gingrich's "reforms" as part of the process that has led to the "Pelosi model."

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Rlritt

    I agree that the best thing for the country is a divided government that hashes out legislation. It's true that no side "wins" but each side gets some of the things they want. The old saying, "you can get anything you want, but you can't get everything you want" applies here. It forces legislators and their constituents to focus on what will be best for them and forces them to maybe accept something they don't want. I think its also true that there are idiots in Congress who do not even have the minimum skills or knowledge to pass laws and govern our country.

    Collapse
    1. Nordic_man

      That would be nice, but it isn't what divided government actually gets us given that one of the 2 parties have been basically toddlers since Obama came into office. Instead divided government gets us government shutdowns with no exit ramp (Cruz), stopping the senate from doing it's basic comitee work to save your party from a difficult scotus vote (McConnel with the garland vote), a bunch of bullshit investigations, and in general toddler poo flinging that gets in the way of functioning government. Now before we go all both sides on this, I get that progressive democrats TALK like this, but if you will notice, when the left does it it stops at talk.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Javier Seravalli

    Would it not be better if the House does what the UK does? After a major election the leaders of both parties get together an agree on a potential Speaker. That person has to come from Parliament and agreed upon by both sides, after a vote. After the swearing the Speaker is officially not partisan, does not caucus and (I think) does not vote regularly. Yet it is still a strong position. This way we avoid the drama that has been going on for 2 (or more) days.

    Collapse
    1. Mullen7724@Gmail.Com

      I believe in following best practices wherever we can find them. We Americans should think seriously about following proven models of good governance, and implement them, even if they might tamper with tradition and ruffle the feathers of powerful people. I wholeheartedly believe in liberal democracy as the best form of government. Liberal democracy has a way of flattening traditional hierarchies over time. Your suggestion is intriguing. I wish we had someone who could impartially guide legislation based on national priorities rather than frivolous attacks on political opponents. But I doubt that's possible.

      Collapse
    2. Mike

      The Speaker role in the Westminster tradition is very different from the US - they have no role in shepherding legislation through the House, they are there to enforce parliament’s rules for running itself

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Javier Seravalli

        Which is exactly the role that I would like to see happening. The House of Commons is far more Democratic and representative than the US House of Representatives. Recall how quickly they were able to get a rid of Thatcher with her poll tax, or Boris Johnson with his dishonesty about having parties, or Liz Truss with her unrealistic economic program. How did that work out with Clinton or Trump?

        Collapse
    3. MathewA

      The UK equivalent us the prime minister who wields even more power, and is extremely partisan

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Javier Seravalli

        I didn't suggest we switch to a parliamentary system.

        Collapse
Load More