On Jan. 3, the 113th House will fulfill its express constitutional duty to choose its speaker. The result may well be the re-election of Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio. But events of the past week have cast some doubt on that.
The vote will be taken by the new House, which has 233 Republicans, 200 Democrats and two vacancies. If 17 Republicans vote for someone other than Boehner, and he falls short of an absolute majority of all the votes cast, the House will be thrown into turmoil — no elected speaker, and the prospect of additional ballots and a whole lot of intrigue before the new speaker is chosen and sworn in.
Every sentient American knows why Boehner is having a restless holiday season: His make-or-break effort to get his colleagues to vote for his Plan B — to give him leverage in his negotiation over the “fiscal cliff” with President Barack Obama — broke, as Republicans balked at supporting their leader. With no Plan B, no alternative Plan C and a conservative base angry and frustrated, it is perhaps not surprising that a group of conservatives has reportedly hatched a plan to oust the speaker.
Boehner is a decent man, and a natural legislator, who is caught in a trap. Republican culture since Boehner’s predecessor, Dennis Hastert, has demanded that legislation brought to the House floor have the pledge of support from a majority of the majority — in other words, that House Republicans act in unison, or close to it, before there is any effort to garner Democratic votes, and that no bill go forward unless and until it has support from a substantial majority of Republicans. It has been clear from the outset of the debate over the U.S. fiscal dilemma that, given the imperative of the no-tax pledge endorsed by 90 percent of House Republicans, no compromise would be achievable without the support of at least as many House Democrats as Republicans, and probably more.
Boehner’s dilemma is worsened by the fact that 50 or more House Republicans come from districts that are homogeneous echo chambers, made that way through redistricting and the “Big Sort” that has like-minded people living in close proximity to one another. None of them is threatened in a general election; all could be unseated in a contested primary.
What if Boehner doesn’t survive? Go to Article I, Section 2: The Constitution does not say that the speaker of the House has to be a member of the House. In fact, the House can choose anybody a majority wants to fill the post. Every speaker has been a representative from the majority party. But these days, the old pattern clearly is not working.
Even in a multiballot marathon, there is no way 17 or more Republicans in the new House would opt for Nancy Pelosi, or any other Democrat. The danger is that a fatigued GOP will settle for a take-no-prisoners firebrand or find another candidate willing to pledge fealty to the radical minority within the majority, turning the current, really bad situation into something worse.
The best way out of this mess would be to find someone from outside the House to transcend the differences and alter the dysfunctional dynamic we are all enduring. Ideally, that individual would transcend politics and party — but after David Petraeus’ stumble, we don’t have many such candidates. It would have to be a partisan Republican.
One option would be Jon Huntsman. By any reasonable standard, he is a conservative Republican: As governor of Utah, he supported smaller government, lower taxes and balanced budgets, and he opted consistently for market-based solutions. As a presidential candidate, he supported positions that were in the wheelhouse of Ronald Reagan. But a Speaker Huntsman would look beyond party and provide a different kind of leadership. He would drive a hard bargain with the president but would aim for a broad majority from the center out, not from the right fringe in.
Another option would be Mitch Daniels, the longtime governor of Indiana and a favorite on the right. Daniels has shown a remarkable ability to work with Democrats and Republicans, and he is a genuine fiscal conservative.
America’s political dysfunction is driven by a Republican Party that has become an insurgent outlier. Unfortunately, even last month’s decisive election has not purged or ameliorated that dysfunction. It may be time for a different kind of out-of-the-box action. Huntsman for speaker!
Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and co-author of “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism.”



Get rid of him
Be careful for what you ask. Other than Huntsman, anyone else (especially a TPer) would be far worse.
Interesting concept. i was not aware of this quirk. I assume the outsider would be an in-house party leader and parliamentarian and would of course would not have a vote.
What the D’s are hoping for is another plastic-faced, brain challenged Pelosi to run the House, so Obama’s plans can be even more effective. We are not given the truths of the meetings O and B had–just O’s rendition of getting closer to a “deal” with the R’s, then shooting that down the hill when it was announced. Boehner needs to stand tall no matter what, as all R’s should in the face off before them.
Please keep urging the Republic Party to continue on their path to political irrelevancy. We’ve had enough of angry, old, religious white guys running this nation.
No. Boehner looks like a good person, to me. He may not be a genius, but he can listen to all the geniuses around him and pick the right, decent answers from them.
Geniuses? Where? Where?
He has the lowest approval rating of all House members. So yeah, he might look good to you, but not to the rest of us.
That’s what great politicians do, esp. since Washington is filled with brilliant, highly educated people. Tip O’Neill and Lyndon Johnson are two who had this gift for selecting right advice at the right time. Nor can you quantify what is ‘best’.
I hope you’re being Ironic. Two of LBJ’s great ‘accomplishments’ were the Great Society, which destroyed the black family, and Vietnam.
Tip O’Neill. A great deal maker…just ask Boston. Sometimes the country benefited, too.
That’s an interesting idea; I wish I believed that such a Speaker would be able to wield any real power in “D.C.”.
It seems to me that the problem lies with “We, the People”, the voters. We elect these people and then sit “idly by” and watch the circus in “D.C.”. We reward them by re-electing them, even after they put their re-election and party politics far ahead of doing what’s best for the country.
The reason we vote for these people is because that’s all we have to choose from. Somehow we need to improve the system to allow independents and less partisan candidates to compete and actually have a chance to winning. I don’t know what the solutions might be; open primaries, limits on campaign contributions, stricter laws against gerrymandering, etc., might help. If we start now perhaps we can alter our political “process” so that it operates for the good of the country, instead of the good of politicians and special interests.
Whatever we do, it’ll require a lot more involvement of a lot more Americans, and I haven’t seen anything to make me believe that’ll happen anytime soon.
Ornstein is apparently blind to the defection of moderate and conservative Democrats to Republican causes and tipping the balance of power in State legislatures away from urban liberals.
This about Washington State In today’s NYTIMES:
December 26, 2012
Washington State Senators Cross Aisle and Tilt Ideological Balance
By KIRK JOHNSON
OLYMPIA,
Wash. — From the governor-elect on down, through both chambers of the
Legislature, a tincture of blue political monoculture drifts through Washington
State politics like mist through the pines.
Or is the Democrat-led consensus an illusion, a distortion of liberal Seattle,
Washington’s urban center and the heartland of the Pacific Northwest left? Two
Democrats in the State Senate, in bolting from the party’s ranks this month to
join with Republicans in creating a…” http://www.senaterepublicans.wa.gov/mcc/index.htm
Seeking a middle ground of compromise and consensus is not a bad thing, and is not an endorsement of the ideological purity the lunatic national GOP leadership or the tea party minority seeks. Moderate republicans in Maine didn’t march in lockstep with LePage when he made extremist proclamations, or when extremists in the legislature proposed policies that were bad for Maine… The Takings bill, for instance. Seeking to make govt more representative of legitimate concerns across a broad spectrum of people and interests is a good thing. The US Congress would do well to follow that lead.
Unfortunately, with extremists and name calling hate mongers like you there is no middle ground, just another excuse for further abuse.
Hmmm… I am endorsing what is happening in Washington state and that makes me an extremist? Interesting formulation you got there.
I like it. A natural stepping stone for Huntsman to a 2016 presidential nomination!