Ending the partisan Speaker of the House 

As the driverless train races toward a dynamited bridge, two men are fighting it out on the roof of the cars, exchanging blows in a desperate struggle between the hero and the villain’s henchman. 

We’ve all seen that movie before. But for the driverless train that is now Congress, the Republicans have taken this trope to a new level, placing not just two combatants, but the entire House Republican Conference on the roof. And in this version of the story, nearly everyone is some form of villain’s henchman. Few if any really “good guys” are involved at all. Meanwhile, the nation and the world ride along as wars, nuclear threats, climate disasters, government shutdown and countless other perils loom ahead.

It really is time for a better movie and a better Congress. 

A good place to start would be to change how Speakers of the House are chosen and the role they serve. The speakership should not be a partisan position, engaged in the politics of favoring one party over another. The Speaker should be solely focused on ensuring that the House can function in a way that serves the people and allows the legislative role to function effectively. 

In other words, we need a way to put an objective, experienced adult in charge of driving the train, and then we need to protect the cab of the engine so that it can’t be hijacked by villains. The real issue should not be who will lead one party or another to victory, and it certainly should not be who will be most loyal to a narcissistic tyrant. Rather, it should be, who will be most able to ensure that the institution can function well for the good of the nation.   

This may sound like fiction, because we’re so used to the chaos and partisanship now, but in fact there are two powerful examples that show how it can be done and with good results. 

When the Constitutional Convention convened, there was no real question of who would be chosen to preside. George Washington was the most trusted and revered leader in the nation and was the unanimous choice of the delegates. Given that mandate, and especially given his prior role as Commander of the army, Washington could well have governed in a self-serving or partisan manner, wielding his influence to shape every debate, denying some the opportunity to be heard while favoring others, using the position to raise money for himself and his partisans, structuring the process to ensure his own enduring and unassailable power, and going to the press to denigrate opponents and aggrandize himself and his followers.    

Washington did none of that. What is more, he prevented, through his example and the rules, anyone else in the convention from doing so. By all accounts, Washington was an objective, fair, unbiased, leader who gave everyone a chance to speak and managed to find ways to resolve the most vexing challenges. Only once did he offer his own substantive suggestion for a provision, which was quickly adopted. Apart from that, Washington was there to serve the process and the nation, not himself or a political party. The result of that non-partisan leadership is the document that has guided the nation for more than two hundred years.    

The other example is the British House of Commons. Their Speaker is chosen through election, but that election is not a partisan battle over who will give one side an advantage over the other. Rather, it is based on who has the respect and confidence of the body to lead the institution fairly and honorably. To help ensure this, anyone nominated to be Speaker must have the support of at least three members of a party other than the nominee’s own affiliation, and the vote, in the modern era, is by secret ballot, thereby limiting the currying of favors or risk of reprisals. Far from spending their life raising campaign funds or making threats to gain the position, the Speaker is expected to demonstrate reluctance and is symbolically “dragged” unwillingly to the speaker’s bench. Once chosen, the Speaker then ceases to be a member of any political party.    

Is there a way this can really happen in the U.S.? 

If the American people get sick and tired enough of the political infighting, they can demand change. Within the Congress, given the relatively small margins between the parties, a coalition of moderate Democrats and Republicans could agree to withhold votes from a partisan Speaker from either side and insist instead on choosing a truly independent Speaker, someone not even from within the House, to lead the institution.

Imagine that: rather than extremists holding the Congress and the nation hostage, moderates could join together to insist on a reform that would benefit the institution and the nation.   

This proposal would not only better serve the nation, it would make the role of members of Congress, many of whom are now frustrated and miserable, much more satisfying and relevant. The truth is, most members of Congress did not come to the institution to join the fights on the roof of the train. But with so much attention dedicated to partisan battles, both internal and external, there is very little time or oxygen left to find common ground, work together, compromise and get things done.    

Selecting a Speaker should no longer be based on unthinking obedience to a tradition that is demonstrably flawed, nor should it be based on political power for personal or partisan advantage. Rather, it should follow the example of Washington and our closest ideological partners and establish something that is far more likely to serve the people in the way the Founders intended.    

Every member of Congress swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. When they do that, perhaps they can reflect on how that Constitution came to be in the first place — through multiple compromises and with the leadership of a non-partisan statesman who eschewed the divisiveness of factions.    

Brian Baird is a former member of the House of Representatives from the state of Washington, serving as a Democrat from 1999-2011.