Hello, friends,

Last week, we talked about my voluntary two hours of psychological torture as I undertook watching the second 2024 Republican Primary Debate.  I then went on vacation, and now I’m back and I’m post-minor-surgical, so we’re going to keep this relatively simple.

Today, against the backdrop of House Republican chaos, I’m going to talk about the House of Representatives, and an idea I’ve advocated for since Nancy Pelosi regained the gavel in 2018.

It’s a simple idea, really - it’s the notion that no Speaker of the House will have two terms in the role.  There are advantages and disadvantages to this idea, but I think you might agree that it’s better than the system we have now.

If you like these little dives and ideas, show your support by subscribing.  We’re trying to reach 50 subscribers in our first year, and so we could really use you at our back!

- Image Credit: National Museum Of American History.

The Advantages Of A Rotating Speakership

The Speakership is a complicated job, involving making and maintaining schedules for votes, as well as negotiating with the rest of your membership, among other key tasks,

It is also a job with extraordinary power.  The kind of power that can, over a long enough period of time, essentially freeze a party’s leadership and therefore its political interests.  Someone who holds the reins long enough serves as a crux that the rest of the party revolves around.  This sounds like a good thing, and while it certainly isn’t definitionally bad, it might not be the best for getting diverse interests represented.

But what if, instead, the Speakership was guaranteed to rotate every term?

Every two years, there’s a new election for the entire House.  Every two years, therefore, we should appoint a new Speaker.  Some might even think we should change party leadership in its totality, but let’s limit the scope of this discussion to just the Speakership, since it’s technically a non-partisan position whereas majority leaders, whips and the like are party functionality posts.

One of the main benefits is that a rotating Speakership means a different state is likely to hold the gavel at different times.  To take Pelosi’s tenure into account:  Rather than, say, someone from California having the Speakership for four years, maybe the lady from California gets it for two, then someone from Georgia gets it for 2.

The diversity of interests being addressed would be of great aid in making sure that the party in charge actually did address its myriad of constituents.

When people in different states and different ways of life see their ways represented in political leadership, they are more likely to think positively of their representation.

It would also guarantee at least one position is constantly rotating amongst the various Representatives.  Even if the party instituted a rule that the previous Majority or Minority Leader is the next Speaker-In-Waiting, it means always adding a new member of the leadership at any given point.

This keeps leadership fresh, with new ideas.  It also enables Representatives to develop top-of-organizational talents, making them better candidates for future jobs such as running for Senate in a difficult state, or maybe even running for an executive office like Governor or President.

But it’s not all sunshine and rainbows.

Disadvantages Of A Rotating Speakership.

First off, since the entire House is up for reelection every two years, there’s no guarantee that the governing party presumed to be part of this procedure is going to win.  Assuming the Democrats adopt this strategy, well, what happens if they lose the House?  There’s no Speakership for them, so they just have the Minority Leader position serving as a sort of Speaker-In-Waiting.

Do you forcibly rotate the Minority Leader position, as well?  That’s a tricky question.

But the more difficult part of the suggestion is that the concentration of power can have a stabilizing effect.  If you don’t necessarily know who your party’s Speaker is going to be, it’s hard to run on a coherent platform.

Even if you have a line of succession planned out (say, Whip to Leader to Speaker), that means every two years you’ve got a slightly different agenda in mind.  Your long-term planning gets a bit harder.

That lack of a stable platform can mean that, yes, new talent can rise up - but so can new talent that doesn’t succeed as well as the prior talent.

Finally, it’s hard to enforce a brand new rule evenly.  This procedure could work well for one or two Terms, but someone may get to be in charge who doesn’t want to go along with the plan any longer.  That would create a political landmine in the sense that the opposing party can claim, “Look at the Democrats, they’ve broken their vows on the Speakership, what else will they lie about?”

But that only happens if someone is elected Speaker who runs a second time and is still given votes, versus a newcomer from either the line of succession (assuming there is one), or just at random!  This can create dysfunctional chains of command if the ambitious get ideas.

Overall, It’s An Idea Worth Considering

I think this is a positive idea, something Democrats should consider strongly.  Even if it comes off as a sort of “unilateral disarmament” where Republicans refuse to alter their chain-of-command to match, it would make the Democratic party more accessible, demonstrating that we welcome new blood while the Republicans do not.

And if we really do live in times where Fascism is trying to rise and it’s up to Democracies to fight it off - and I do believe that - then our best insurance is to demonstrate that we really do care about Democracy both as a party and as a form of government.

Of course, right now the Republicans have no fuckin’ clue how to govern, so this would be the least of their considerations.

In Other News

In Other News is where, well, I talk about other news.  In this case I have one important one to start with, one which almost makes up its own article:

Thank you for reading The Progressive Cafe.  If this article has helped you, please consider signing up for our mailing list.  This article is by Jesse Pohlman, a sci-fi/fantasy author from Long Island, New York, whose website you can check out here.