Mulvaney: Fix the House: adopt Britain’s non-partisan Speaker

I spoke at a conference last year with John Bercow. His name isn’t well known in this country, but his distinctive cry of “Order!” from the British House of Commons is familiar to many political junkies. Bercow was the Speaker of the House of Commons from 2009 until 2019, which included the very contentious debates regarding Brexit.   

When we were sharing notes as to our experiences into our respective legislative bodies, he was quick to point out that, though he was a Tory when he was elected to the post by his colleagues, he was expected to (and did) resign from the party upon taking the Speaker’s chair. While that is a relatively recent development, it is “recent” only by British standards. The Speaker’s role in Parliament has been non-partisan for more than 150 years. 

In Britain, the Speaker’s role is institutional, not partisan. The Speaker is in charge of managing debate and enforcing the rules of the Commons.

Which is the critical part: the rules of Commons. That is where our American counterpart has broken down. It doesn’t really have any rules.   

The British have their “Standing Orders” — written rules that are supplemented by centuries of tradition and precedent. Many state legislatures use Roberts Rules of Order or Jefferson’s Manual of Parliamentary Practice. Even your local school boards and condo associations have some sort of rules that they follow, written down and knowable to everyone in advance.  

The U.S. House has none of that. While it is officially governed by its own “rules package” that it adopts at the beginning of each Congress, and it also has its own set of traditions and precedents, as a practical matter, the only rules are what the Speaker determines.   

Those rules can and do change for each separate piece of legislation that comes to the floor. The process begins in the House Rules Committee (most of whose members are selected by the Speaker) and is affirmed by the whole House, where the majority is typically expected to vote in lockstep with the Speaker. As there is no overarching set of rules that governs how the House functions, generally no bill can come to floor for a vote without first voting for the relevant set of rules for that bill. 

The bottom line of all that inside-the-Beltway gobbledygook is this: The Speaker of the House sets the rules for each piece of legislation; chooses the bills that will and will not be voted on for any given day; sets the time for debate; sets the amendments that will be considered, as well as which will not be; sets the time for each of those amendments to be debated; and is even involved in which members of the majority party will get to argue on specific amendments.  

Why are standardized, knowable, consistent rules important, as opposed to the current constantly ad hoc process in the House? Because in a properly functioning legislature, the minority has rights. So do factions within the parties, and so even do individual members. They may not have many rights, and certainly the minority doesn’t have the ability to dictate terms to the majority. (Nor should it.)  But at least there is a fair an open process, readily discernable and exercisable to all sides, evenly and fairly.   

The House actually gave at least a little consideration to the rules issue several years back. In 2015, Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) offered his name for the Speaker’s gavel, promising to be more of an independent rules enforcer than the current system envisions. He received 12 votes in January when Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) was elected, and nine later that same year when Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) replaced the retiring Boehner.  

While the issue wasn’t really ripe back then, perhaps it is today — especially if Republicans are not capable of rallying behind a single candidate for Speaker, which is a real risk right now. 

One consequence of the almost-complete authority of the Speaker (and of the minority leader) is that both the minority party and minority opinions within each of the parties usually get short shrift. 

On both sides of the aisle, members often feel that they do not get to properly represent their constituents. They feel that they don’t have any voice at all. That can (and does) lead to frustration, which leads to a breakdown in order. 

I didn’t vote for Daniel Webster back in 2015. And I will be perfectly content if Jim Jordan or Steve Scalise or any of a number of other Republicans becomes Speaker. 

But clearly, in a Congress where a Speaker can be deposed without any clear plan for what comes next, times have changed. Maybe we need the Speaker to serve as a non-partisan leader of the House — someone hired not to advance a particular political agenda, but to enforce the House rules evenly. 

Yes, it would be a gamble for Republicans to give up some of the political power of the speakership. And yes, they would need some sort of credible promise from the Democrats to follow the same path the next time they win a House majority. But there is a huge incentive for both parties to take a leap of faith on this. 

Perhaps giving up some rights while in the majority is a fair price to pay for having a meaningful role in the minority. More importantly, perhaps, an independent Speaker might restore some “Order!” to the House, something that is currently badly lacking.  

Mick Mulvaney, a former congressman from South Carolina, is a contributor to NewsNation. He served as director of the Office of Management and Budget, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and acting White House chief of staff under President Donald Trump.