How to solve Republicans’ Speaker problem: Don’t elect a new Speaker

Does the House of Representatives even need a new Speaker?

This question may soon be answered.

There is a high probability that the fight between House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) to be the next Speaker will not be resolved this week. Many conservatives are rallying around Jordan, while many in leadership, and with personal ties to Scalise, favor him.

This may result in a stalemate within the House Republican Conference. And that may not be a bad outcome.

First, the raised expectations for whoever gets the Speaker’s office will inevitably cause disappointment among the base of the Republican Party, which will be directed at the eventual winner. The Republican Party, and conservatives driving policy, have a few simple goals. One is to establish an appropriations process that considers one subject matter at a time, as this would make cuts to discretionary spending far more likely.

Another goal is to make Congress use the appropriations process to address policy issues that touch on immigration, a weaponized Department of Justice and woke policies infecting the Pentagon.

A third goal is to make leadership fight on the high-profile issues that motivate voters, such as ending wasteful spending programs and pressuring the Biden administration to take a hard look at Ukraine policy.

Electing a new Speaker will not necessarily solve any of the policy questions afflicting Americans as they suffer from rapidly increasing prices and high interest rates. It is more likely that the Republican-controlled House ends up disappointing members of the House Freedom Caucus and the base of the Republican Party when moderates team up with Democrats to pass appropriations bills.

Do we think a new Speaker will let the government shut down in November to get enough leverage to push good policy and cut spending? I doubt it.

Neither Scalise nor Jordan would, as Speaker, be able solve the problems at the heart of average Americans’ current experience of inflation and high interest rates. They will go down the road of former Speakers McCarthy, Paul Ryan and John Boehner — not because they don’t want to be great leaders, but because they will not have the power to make good policy. The great danger is that conservatives put all their eggs in the basket of getting a new Speaker, then are disappointed when they get rolled.

It is possible that a Speaker-less House is the best outcome, because the dispersed power among individual members of the House of Representatives may allow for a more open process that leads to some good votes.  

Matt Glassman, a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, formerly of the Congressional Research Service, argued in a recent Substack post that Rule I, Clause 8(b)(3) grants Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) powers that mirror those of an actual elected Speaker. There may therefore be no need to raise voter’s expectations with a new Speaker who cannot deliver on what the voters want.

“In my view,” Glassman argues, “a Clause 8(b)(3) Speaker pro tempore could use all the powers of the Office of Speaker necessary to conduct business in the House, including referring bills to committee, recognizing members to call up legislation, and entertaining motions to suspend the rules and pass bills.”

The House, then, can apparently function without an elected Speaker.

Conservatives in the House should not get upset if there is no new Speaker. It may at least allow them to dig in and use the dispersed power removed from the Speaker’s office to force vote after vote on good policy. A Speaker-less House may end up being the best outcome.

Brian Darling is former counsel to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).