Speaker of the House (Centralization vs Decentralization)

pre-1900s speaker

• speaker + congress weak

• short-term legislators

• experience not necessary

centralization: cannon

• Speaker Cannon presided over a disciplined House

• complete control over committees

• “Revolution” of 1910: a coalition of progressive Republicans and Democrats stripped conservative cannon his autocratic powers (acting czar-like)

decentralization: rayburn

• power came from personal style even though he had no real powers

• strong seniority norm

• great committee autonomy (barons dominating their committee)

• speaker coordinated barons to get things done

centralization: o’neill, wright, foley

• influx of new Democrats demanded strong party government

• committee chairs up for election by the party caucus

• “subcommittee Bill of Rights”

• speaker appoints co-partisans and chair to rules committee (speaker essentially controls RC)

  • the power that used to be in the hands of the party shifts

• speaker can issue multiple referrals (bills can go to multiple committees, less power for committee chairs)

centralization: gingrich

• committee assignmnets based fully on party loyalty

• use power to enforce party loyalty (not loyal? here’s a shitty committee)

• myriad seniority violations

• another revolution

centralization (maintainence): hastert

• no new methods

• chosen for his less outspoken personal style

• but strong party government continued to reing

• congress as an instrument of the president (delegate more influence to President: public, controlled legislation, veto all to make Republicans look good)

• hastert rule: no votes on a bill unless it is supported by a majority of the majority of speaker’s party (speaker ensures this, more wisdom and not legal)

centralization: pelosi

• focus on loyalty through committee assignments and campaign contributions

• gave out committee seats to grow loyalty to Democrati coarty (reward/incentivize, not punish)

• “velvet hammer”

• congress engaged in more presidential oversight

herding cats: boehner

• attempted to continue centralization

• tea party activists elected (wanting radical change, strong opposition to President + Democrats) to advocate change

• no incentive to compromise

• “loyal opposition” to the president

• hard time organizing the chamber

• did the same thing with committee seats as Pelosi, but they didn’t fall in line (pushed back)

• resisted and stuck together ➡ can’t punish them all without hurting the party + speakership

centralization: ryan

• no clear successor to Boehner

• took power reluctantly and conditionally so as not to repeat problems

• used office to advance presidential (party) interests

centralization: pelosi (2019 post-midterms)

• worked more behind the scenes

• back again for more of the same

• successfully pre-empted challenge to leadership

• relied on network of outside supporters

• 2018 midterms increased the bifurcated nature of the caucus

• success depends on giving enough freedom while maintaining unity

decentralization: mccarthy

• 15 ballots to be elected

• lack of productivity

• motion to vacate reduced to 1 vote to introduce

• “if somebody wants to remove me because I want to be the adult in the room, go ahead and try” → removed 216-210 (208 Dems and 8 Reps)

• couldn’t unify republican party and democrats (didn’t trust him) sat back and ate popcorned

(de)centralization: johnson

• current speaker

• uses benefit of Trump to twist arms

• used his power but its less power than his predecessors

• democrats were willing to work with and trust him

• passed “minibus” funding bills with majority of democratic support

• impeached DHS Secretary

• survived motion to vacate (163 dems opposed the move)