The neutering of John Boehner
The debt ceiling showdown is a painful demonstration of the House Speaker's limited influence with his own party
Topics: Debt ceiling, War Room, Politics News
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio pauses during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, July 19, 2011. Boehner said he is considering alternative budget plans even as the House takes up a GOP proposal to cap spending and eventually require a balanced budget. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)(Credit: AP)Poor John Boehner. He has reached the pinnacle of his career. Speaker of the House. Remember the cheers from the Republicans that greeted his election? Remember the tears in his eyes? It doesn’t get better than that.
But where are the cheers now? All Boehner wants to do is make a difference, to make a huge dent in the deficit, to begin to fulfill the promises on which his party came to power. And just look how his followers have responded. Is there exultation because he has garnered concessions on spending from a Democratic president that no one thought possible? Is there renewed adulation? Praise as the leader the Republicans have always craved?
Absolutely not.
He is a leader without followers. His supposedly loyal lieutenant, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, has played the role of Brutus. No compromises with the dreaded Democrats. Who cares if this is the best deal anyone can imagine? We don’t compromise. We don’t make deals.
While the drama of the negotiations over raising the debt ceiling is compelling, the deeper story about the fate of Boehner, the future of legislative leadership, and even the political future of the Republican Party might be more important in the long run.
Students of the Congress have long argued that the speaker of the House is a leader with power, while the majority leader in the Senate must cajole his co-partisans in order to accomplish anything. The rule of thumb for young Democrats in the mid-20th century, when Sam Rayburn of Texas was speaker, was that to get ahead in the House, you had to get along with Mr. Sam. Speaker Rayburn knew what members wanted — and he had the power to reward them or to deny them, depending on whether they did his bidding or not.
His Senate counterpart was Lyndon Johnson; and, as Robert Caro has so skillfully shown us, Johnson succeeded by persuasion, not formal powers. The Johnson Treatment, all 6 feet and 4 inches of Johnson draped over shorter colleagues, whispering in their ears, knowing their secrets and cajoling their cooperation, was a leadership style marked by personal favors and implied threats.
When George Mitchell, after leaving the Senate as majority leader, was considered for the job of commissioner of Major League Baseball, he reportedly was asked, “How will you manage to deal with 30 multimillionaires, each with their own agenda and independent power?” Mitchell replied, “That will be easy. I had twice that many in the Democratic caucus in the Senate!” He too ruled by persuasion. Speaker Tip O’Neill could negotiate with President Reagan and deliver his votes, because he retained power over the members of his caucus.




No Evidence FBI Is Targeting Chechen Separatists In Boston Bombing Case, Advocates Say
Bill De Blasio Won't Be Distracted By Anthony Weiner
State Roadblocks Could Complicate Marriage Momentum
Comments
40 Comments