Wow. I really disagree with Julian E. Zelizer’s interpretation of the evolution of the Congress from his article at Atlantic. Why have recent House Speakers been so weak?
Why the perpetual instability? Why have speakers struggled to regain the standing they once held in the days of Rayburn, John McCormack, Tip O’Neill, and other legends who amassed great power?
Part of the answer goes back to the congressional reforms of the 1970s. No longer willing to live under the kind of iron-clad authority that committee leaders enjoyed since the early 20th century, younger Democrats and Republicans implemented new rules and norms that would enable the rank-and-file to keep their speakers accountable and on a short leash. Tightened ethics regulations, for instance, offered a powerful tool for members to bring down those in power should they act in corrupt fashion. The purpose of the reforms was to avoid the kind of situation that Congress faced from the 1930s to the 1970s, when a bipartisan coalition of Southern Democratic committee chairs and Republican ranking members—working closely with the speaker—controlled debate in the House and stifled initiatives such as civil rights.
The era of reform quickly gave way to the era of partisan polarization. The divide between the Democrats and Republicans kept growing as there were fewer members in the middle of the two parties. With greater polarization came more intense partisan warfare. More speakers—like Jim Wright—were caught in the crossfire.
He might want to re-examine his account of the history of civil rights legislation. It was enacted by a coalition of northern Democrats and Republicans. Blaming Republicans for some things is legitimate; blaming them for the slow progress of civil rights legislation 1930-1970 is a bum wrap.
My explanation would be quite different. Reducing (or eliminating) earmarks has removed a powerful tool from the Speaker’s toolbox. Speakers are weak because the members of Congress are weak. It’s a voluntary condition; they’d rather be weak and re-elected than strong and serve only a single term. Partisan polarization was an express outcome of the reforms of the 1970s. Campaign finance reform and increasing polarization have changed the character of candidates. And so on.
Every putatively well-intended reform of the last forty years has had unintended consequences and we’re moving inexorably from liberal democracy to plutocracy to hereditary aristocracy.
Speaking of unintended consequences…
I know it’s against the law, and it will never happen, but perhaps the biggest mistake made by the framers was not providing for one term in office. Say, 6 for President, 8 for Senate and 4 for Rep. or some such.
The most often cited reasons against I’ve seen are ) it takes time to get good at the job and, ) term limits subvert the will of the people. Get good at the job? Then add a year, while being amused at the notion. Subvert the will of the people? (Snicker, guffaw).
Observing the political process and it’s horrid bastardization by re-election considerations, IMHO the benefits outweigh by the proverbial country mile.