On Reducing the Power of U.S. Speaker of the House THUS SPAKE MCCARTHY

by HAYES WHORTON STAFF WRITER

Kevin McCarthy’s recent ascent to Speaker of the House has raised and revived concerns by many about the magnitude of power exercised by the Speaker. Critics They are absolutely right to hold these concerns. The current wave of radicalism in the Republican party that has swept McCarthy into office is exposing a fundamental flaw in the construction of the Speaker’s role: this position gives a highly unreasonable amount of power to any individual, empowering their political faction in a dangerous and undemocratic way.

The Speaker of the House is the political leader of the House of Representatives, as well as the de facto leader of the majority party. The Constitution never clearly lays out the partisan role of the Speaker, so it has evolved over time, currently operating as a highly partisan office. The most important job of the Speaker as a majority leader is choosing which bills make it to the House floor to be debated and voted on. This makes it virtually impossible to introduce legislation unfavorable to the Speaker and their faction. This power is highly problematic for even an otherwise well-functioning democracy. To give so much power to a role that isn’t even directly elected by the nation’s citizens, as (a House vote determines the Speaker).

Even the president, whose power is far more democratically legitimate, doesn’t have legislative authority compared to this power of the Speaker’s. This power clearly stands in opposition to the democratic norms which are supposed to govern the nation, and it is unlikely that the Constitution would have allowed for this had its authors considered the dangers of a politicized speaker role.

In an ideal House, the Speaker would respect and account for the concerns of all parties and factions, and try to mediate these concerns to achieve satisfactory compromises. This is the wager of democracy, and it is how democratic governments maintain legitimacy. In an era of heightened polarization and moral fervor, compromise loses its legitimacy, appearing instead as a at any time, the decision making process is extended; this will prevent important policies from being implemented in a timely manner. As evidenced by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leadership during the 201819 government shutdown, Trump’s impeachment, and the COVID-19 pandemic, the Speaker must be able to take swift action during times of immense need. Pelosi’s tenure as Speaker shows that whomever takes on this role must have sufficient power to check the executive branch. The ultimate role of Congress is to serve the American people–if the House cannot operate efficiently, the everyday lives of Americans will be altered significantly.

As Speaker of the House, McCarthy should act as a unifying force between Democrats and Republi- cans. In the Constitution, it states that the Speaker must protect the rights of the minority. By acting in a partisan manner and prioritizing the interests of conservatives, McCarthy betrayal by elected officials of their voters. This is not necessarily damning for democracy, and such moral passions have driven progressive movements of great benefit to the nation. However, it is obvious how, in certain situations, this dynamic can be destructive. It appears that the McCarthy election might be such a situation. Kevin McCarthy represents the Trump-wing of the Republican party, a factionwing with many members who still baselessly deny the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, rejecting with it the legitimacy of the standing federal government. This is problematic regardless of what one believes about the 2020 election. McCarthy has inherited the wing of a party which casts its vitriol on anyone who dares to criticize its figurehead, regardless not only would not fulfill his role as Speaker, but would undermine his legitimacy. Many of the Republicans calling for the limitation of the Speaker’s power are those who challenged the results of the 2020 election. Therefore, acting in favor of these congresspeople signals to the American people that the protection of democracy is at stake. This also signals that McCarthy favors his own political agenda over the interests of the American people. Furthermore, the negotiations during the voting process created a divide between moderates and conservatives because of McCarthy’s concessions; moderates are concerned that they will subvert the power that the GOP currently wields. If this is any evidence of what the speakership will look like with a decrease in power, then it is clear that McCarthy must stand his ground and the powers of the Speaker must be protected. of how factually true and logically sound such criticism is. Even if McCarthy wanted to take the Speaker role in a bipartisan direction, his voter base would not have it, which rules out the possibility of him pur- his consistent climate change denial. It’s difficult to understate the existential danger of ignoring the threat that climate change poses to the world. If the Sspeaker position were not so powerful, this problem would not be so pronounced. However, with McCarthy at the helm of the House, it might prove to be impossible to pass the drastic legislation necessary to avoid a climate disaster. If McCarthy is not removed or the speaker position made weaker, the critical window within which this legislation must be passed to avoid climate fallout might be missed entirely. suing this practice.

This situation is made far worse when one considers the particulars of McCarthy himself. Worse than his history of baseless election denial is

It is imperative for the security of the nation’s democracy and environment that the Speaker’s power over the legislative process be greatly diminished.