SPEAKERSHIP ROULETTE — As the work week comes to a close on Capitol Hill, we’ve got another prospect in the House Speaker’s race. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) today won the GOP conference’s nomination with 124 votes. If this week’s events serve as a guide, though, there’s an ocean of difference between that secret-ballot vote and actually winning on the House floor. Fifty-five House Republicans have already indicated they won’t support Jordan in a floor vote, at least for now. They’ll take up the issue again Monday. After Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) secured the votes of 113 Republicans on Wednesday, he withdrew his name from consideration for the post on Thursday after he realized there was no clear path to the 217 votes from the full House that he needed to ascend to the speakership. Now, Jordan faces a similar problem — just as hardliners in the Republican House conference refused to back Scalise, moderate Republicans are now exhibiting their unwillingness to rubber stamp a Jordan nomination. It leaves House Republicans stuck, with no obvious candidate who can satisfy the wishes of the entire conference — though the situation could change at any moment. The inability to compromise signals deep disarray within the Republican conference, but it also demonstrates the ways in which House leadership’s relationship to the rank and file has changed over the years — and how it affects how Congress might function moving forward. To better understand the situation on the ground and to put it in a more historical context, Nightly spoke with Rich Cohen, the chief author of the 2024 Almanac of American Politics and a veteran reporter who’s spent decades reporting on the House. This interview has been edited. It’s been 10 days since the House has had a speaker. How unprecedented is that? Could past speakers you’ve covered ever imagined a scenario where the House couldn’t decide on a Speaker? The only apparent precedent is the one month that House Republicans took in October 2015 to select a successor to John Boehner, after he announced his resignation as Speaker. The similarities seem striking: Kevin McCarthy — like Steve Scalise now — was Majority Leader and the obvious heir apparent. But House Republicans rejected him and then struggled to find a successor until they settled on Paul Ryan, who was reluctant to take the job. The larger point is that the selection to fill a vacancy for Speaker for more than 100 years typically has gone to an individual who was next in line in party leadership — often for many years. Something of an exception was when Dennis Hastert, who had been chief deputy whip, filled the vacancy after Newt Gingrich was forced to step down in 1998. In that situation, the initial choice of Rep. Bob Livingston — a predecessor to Scalise in his Louisiana seat — was rejected and the top leadership members were bypassed, though Hastert was a close ally of Tom DeLay. But that succession was resolved quickly and with no obvious internal conflict. How much of this is about ideology and how much is about personalities? Or is it about something else entirely? Given that most Republicans generally agree on conservative principles, this doesn’t seem to be about ideology. No doubt, personalities have become an issue. But I suggest that a paramount factor — especially with Republicans — is an ongoing clash about the power of the modern Speaker. Many members resent that influence, which was greatly expanded by Gingrich and later enhanced further by Nancy Pelosi. Those members want to return to some version of “regular order,†in which the deliberative process starts in committees and then continues to the House floor — and ultimately to the Senate and President. Finding a way to rebuild the committee process has become more difficult than ever, and it will require the collaboration of a Speaker. What does this impasse tell you about the modern House? Polarization in the nation and in our politics surely is a factor. But that doesn’t explain the difficulties that each party has faced when it controlled both Congress and the White House. The inability of each party to address overriding national problems — such as the deficit and debt, financing of Social Security and Medicare, abortion, economic regulation — reveals a breakdown in deliberation. In various ways, recent presidents have contributed to that problem. What does it tell you about the House GOP? I don’t see agreement by House Republicans on a clear-cut policy agenda. That is separate from the likelihood that a Democratic-controlled Senate and White House would reject much of that plan, even if Republicans could pass it. So far, at least, they remain willing to handle “must-pass†legislation to raise the debt limit and continue federal operations. To the extent that many Republicans want to hold President Biden accountable through oversight and/or impeachment, they seem to be having little impact. In this new GOP world, what would be the ideal qualities of a successful speaker? Would those traits be different than in the past? It seems clear that many House Republicans want to return to a model in which the Speaker chiefly “presides,†as was the case throughout much of the 20th century. Sam Rayburn and Tip O’Neill were models of that style. Both led a very diverse Democratic Party. They largely deferred to committee chairmen in crafting legislation and wielded considerable influence on their own terms. It’s worth keeping in mind that O’Neill served 10 years — longer than any of his successors — and is the most recent Speaker who stepped aside voluntarily (in 1986), while their party retained the majority. None of his nine successors as Speaker (including Pelosi twice) could make such a claim. Are there any compromise candidates who make sense for House Republicans? What’s the path forward from here? Today’s failed bid for Speaker by Rep. Austin Scott of Georgia has offered another option: a back-bencher, though generally respected lawmaker, who is virtually unknown to the general public. As an active member of multiple committees, he has offered a path to restore committee powers, which I earlier mentioned. While he fell short, it will be interesting to see whether the potential “back to the future†approach by Scott gains support, perhaps from another possible contender. Of course, House Republicans face the more immediate dilemma of finding a choice for Speaker who can win support from competing factions seemingly led by McCarthy, Scalise and Jim Jordan. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at [email protected]. Or contact tonight’s authors at [email protected] or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @calder_mchugh.
| 
