Joshua Spivak: Why have so many recent speakers of the house fallen?
[Joshua Spivak is a New York-based attorney and media consultant.]
Tuesday's crushing Republican defeat, prodded along by a series of scandals and cover-ups, signifies an embarrassing end to Speaker Dennis Hastert's political career. Hastert's fall from power is the latest in a destabilizing trend in the House of Representatives. For nearly all of the twentieth century, the position of the speaker of the House -- one of the most powerful political positions in the country -- was solid as a rock. It was only given up by death, voluntary retirement or when the party lost majority status.
However, starting at the end of the 1980s, each House speaker has met a grueling political end. The reason for this trend is not fully clear, but for Nancy Pelosi and future members of the House, it may signify the beginning of a more democratic, free-wheeling, and less organized House of Representatives, one that will not be able to pass legislation so easily.
The entire trend of fallen speakers is both recent and surprising, as the speaker is generally a popular, politically savvy and well connected member of the House's majority party. But since 1989, every speaker has left office under fire. Democrat Jim Wright was forced to resign after a financial scandal made his tenure untenable in 1989. His successor, Thomas Foley, became the first speaker in 134 years to lose an election to the House.
Newt Gingrich, the leader of the Republican Revolution of 1994 and the first GOP speaker in half a century, resigned after losing the support of his fellow congressional representatives. Additionally, the Republican's first choice as successor to Newt Gingrich as speaker, Appropriations Chair Robert Livingston, was out before he was even sworn in due to a brewing sex scandal. Now, Hastert, who had just set the record for the longest Republican speakership, will join his immediate predecessors in departing the speaker's chair in an embarrassing fashion.
Each of these collapses appeared to be due to exceptional circumstances:
A House page scandal; the Clinton impeachment and its fallout; Foley tossed out of office in a Republican tidal wave; Wright's resignation rooted in a series of difficult-to-understand financial scandals. However, they may point to a shift in the how the speaker will operate in the future.
Speakers have long been selected for a wide range of talents, including political foresight, interpersonal skills, bureaucratic swordsmanship, charisma, mastery of subject matter, ability to compromise and fundraising acumen. But throughout the late 19th and most of the 20th centuries, they all generally rose through the ranks of the House, following the famous maxim of the longest serving speaker in history, Sam Rayburn: "go along to get along." In fact, for over 70 years ending in 1998, and 13 straight handovers, the speaker had previously held the position of either majority or minority leader (or when the minority leader retired, minority whip). But these recent speaker collapses may show that the same talents and maneuvers that allow people to begin the rise to power in the House may also be planting the seeds for their destruction.
The talent for rising in the House involves serving the large, frequently static, membership body. To perform this task, an elected official must traverse a minefield of potentially damaging compromises. Speakers also have to be prepared to take a bullet for their fellow members, on issues such as raising Congressional pay, which can make the leader popular in the House chamber, but not particularly beloved in the nation. It is no surprise that the only speaker to ever serve as president was James K. Polk way back in 1844. What has changed is that these compromises that House leaders make now receive a great deal of public scrutiny. So whether it is the House check-bouncing shenanigans or the Foley page scandal, these failures are now embarrassing front-page fodder, one that the speakers, mostly justifiably, get blamed for.
At the same time, with the speakers blamed for these failures, individual representatives are not willing to saddle their own electoral prospects by supporting tainted leaders. Therefore, the speakers are more likely to be tossed overboard, as was the case with Gingrich, or cause themselves to be the personification of Congressional failure, such as Tom Foley....
Read entire article at Herald News (Chicago)
Tuesday's crushing Republican defeat, prodded along by a series of scandals and cover-ups, signifies an embarrassing end to Speaker Dennis Hastert's political career. Hastert's fall from power is the latest in a destabilizing trend in the House of Representatives. For nearly all of the twentieth century, the position of the speaker of the House -- one of the most powerful political positions in the country -- was solid as a rock. It was only given up by death, voluntary retirement or when the party lost majority status.
However, starting at the end of the 1980s, each House speaker has met a grueling political end. The reason for this trend is not fully clear, but for Nancy Pelosi and future members of the House, it may signify the beginning of a more democratic, free-wheeling, and less organized House of Representatives, one that will not be able to pass legislation so easily.
The entire trend of fallen speakers is both recent and surprising, as the speaker is generally a popular, politically savvy and well connected member of the House's majority party. But since 1989, every speaker has left office under fire. Democrat Jim Wright was forced to resign after a financial scandal made his tenure untenable in 1989. His successor, Thomas Foley, became the first speaker in 134 years to lose an election to the House.
Newt Gingrich, the leader of the Republican Revolution of 1994 and the first GOP speaker in half a century, resigned after losing the support of his fellow congressional representatives. Additionally, the Republican's first choice as successor to Newt Gingrich as speaker, Appropriations Chair Robert Livingston, was out before he was even sworn in due to a brewing sex scandal. Now, Hastert, who had just set the record for the longest Republican speakership, will join his immediate predecessors in departing the speaker's chair in an embarrassing fashion.
Each of these collapses appeared to be due to exceptional circumstances:
A House page scandal; the Clinton impeachment and its fallout; Foley tossed out of office in a Republican tidal wave; Wright's resignation rooted in a series of difficult-to-understand financial scandals. However, they may point to a shift in the how the speaker will operate in the future.
Speakers have long been selected for a wide range of talents, including political foresight, interpersonal skills, bureaucratic swordsmanship, charisma, mastery of subject matter, ability to compromise and fundraising acumen. But throughout the late 19th and most of the 20th centuries, they all generally rose through the ranks of the House, following the famous maxim of the longest serving speaker in history, Sam Rayburn: "go along to get along." In fact, for over 70 years ending in 1998, and 13 straight handovers, the speaker had previously held the position of either majority or minority leader (or when the minority leader retired, minority whip). But these recent speaker collapses may show that the same talents and maneuvers that allow people to begin the rise to power in the House may also be planting the seeds for their destruction.
The talent for rising in the House involves serving the large, frequently static, membership body. To perform this task, an elected official must traverse a minefield of potentially damaging compromises. Speakers also have to be prepared to take a bullet for their fellow members, on issues such as raising Congressional pay, which can make the leader popular in the House chamber, but not particularly beloved in the nation. It is no surprise that the only speaker to ever serve as president was James K. Polk way back in 1844. What has changed is that these compromises that House leaders make now receive a great deal of public scrutiny. So whether it is the House check-bouncing shenanigans or the Foley page scandal, these failures are now embarrassing front-page fodder, one that the speakers, mostly justifiably, get blamed for.
At the same time, with the speakers blamed for these failures, individual representatives are not willing to saddle their own electoral prospects by supporting tainted leaders. Therefore, the speakers are more likely to be tossed overboard, as was the case with Gingrich, or cause themselves to be the personification of Congressional failure, such as Tom Foley....