Why the battle over the fiscal cliff? Donoghue argues that the Hastert Rule — Thou Shalt Only Pass Legislation in the House with A Majority of the Republicans — makes it nearly impossible for the Speaker (poor John Boehner) to create a coalition of Republicans and Democrats to get something passed. And as long as Boehner sticks to that rule (and thus keeps his Speaker position), the least compromising of the GOP can continue to work their way, even if a majority of the overall House feels differently.
Ah, politics …
Reshared post from +Rob Donoghue
Another Nerdy Political One. You have been warned.
Ok, so here's why the events in the House surrounding the fiscal cliff are fascinating.
Historically, the Speaker of the House was a dealmaker, not a political officer. That is to say, when they wanted to get something through Congress, they built a block of votes from wherever they could be found. Their position in the majority was a lever, but it did not define their role. This was not "bipartisanship" – that's weak sauce – it was coalition building. If you read any history of congress, it's full of great stories about this.
This changed. It was not a gradual change, though the exact time is hard to pinpoint. Basically, when Newt Gingrich took over the house in 95 he started implementing a "Majority of the Majority" policy, which was then cemented by his successor Denny Hastert (and it is often called the "Hastert Rule"). What this meant was that it would require a Republican majority (rather than a coalition) for a bill to pass through the House.
I realize that this might be perceived as a partisan assertion, but really it's not. It's in the records, and the details are nerdy enough that I won't go into them, but it is a thing, which happened. But there are a few consequences subject to interpretation:
* This is a part of why politics has grown more partisan. Even in places not directly impacted by the Hastert rule, the fact that the House acts as a chokepoint has a ripple effect. Basic math.
* This is also why a minority within the majority can exercise disproportionate authority – they're necessary for getting an all-republican vote past 50%. Historically, there were alternatives that pushed things to moderation, but those alternatives are off the table under the Hastert Rule. Again, basic math.
* There is nothing intrinsic to the republican party that demands this arrangement. It's simply a result of the personalities and situation surrounding the GOP takeover of the house and moves to cement their base. If the Democrats were to take control of the House and follow the same rule, they'd encounter the same problems.
Anyway, the fiscal cliff is casting this into sharp relief. See, the problem for Speaker Boehner is not that he doesn't have enough votes, the problem is that he doesn't have enough republican votes.
Boehner's plan B was a last gasp to try to build a majority of the majority to deal with the fiscal cliff, and the minority of the majority tanked it. Effectively, it's a power play – a bet that Boehner would be unwilling to break the Hastert Rule. If he builds a coalition, he loses the support of the minority (and the $$$ they represent) just as a new term begins. If he doesn't build a coalition (or find some internal compromise) then we go over the cliff, and we roll the dice with the future. And, heck, some political animals might be happy to roll the dice, betting that another economic downturn will garner more republican seats.
So, I'm watching all this for the outcome of the cliff, certainty, but I'm doubly watching it as a battle for the future of the House.
Google+: View post on Google+