What can Speaker contests tell us? 

After all the wrangling, tangling and finagling these past three weeks over electing a House Speaker, the most repeated observation both by many insiders and lots of outsiders has been, “Who would even want that job?”   

Yes, it is a high honor and prestigious title to be bestowed on a member by colleagues, but it is also a hotbed of controversy, grievance and, as we have seen, possible instantaneous removal. 

Last week’s nomination of Republican Whip Tom Emmer (Minn.) lasted all of four hours before he withdrew for lack of sufficient floor votes to be elected, as had the two previous nominees for the same reason: Majority Leader Steve Scalise (La.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (Ohio). Emmer’s withdrawal sent members back into yet another exhausting “candidates forum” Tuesday evening.  

From that lengthy conclave emerged the nomination of Conference Vice Chair Mike Johnson (La.). The following day, Johnson was elected on the floor with the unanimous vote of his Republican colleagues, 220-209, over Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.). The gang that couldn’t vote straight had finally found the bullseye. 

In the early years of the republic, the role of House Speaker was little more than that of a moderator — a neutral presiding officer. But as parties began to form, the Jefferson-Madison Republican-Democrats and the Hamilton-Adams Federalists, so too did de facto floor leaders, taking their signals from the presidential wings of their parties. The first strong Speaker was Rep. Henry Clay of Kentucky between 1811 and 1825, elected to the top post as a freshman.   

Clay was already well known as a leader of “The New Republicans” who favored internal improvements, westward expansion and war with Great Britain — the latter earning them the nickname, “The War Hawks.” Clay was not averse to stepping down from the podium and forcefully speaking for his policy priorities and arm-twisting his colleagues to go along.  

While some subsequent Speakers were content to confine themselves to the moderator role and stay above the fray, Clay had set a new bar for the potential political powers of the Speakership.

By the 19th century, in the run-up to the Civil War, it was not unusual for there to be heated and prolonged contests to elect a Speaker. The Whig Party was dying, a new Republican Party was aborning, and a host of splinter parties were proliferating — from the Abolitionists and Free Soilers to the Fusionists and Rum Democrats. They reflected fissures among the electorate over issues like the surge in immigrants, a revival of religious fundamentalism and the debates over slavery.

In the 1849 election for House Speaker, Georgia Democrat Howell Cobb defeated incumbent Whig Speaker Robert Winthrop of Massachusetts on the 63rd ballot. In 1855, Massachusetts Rep. Nathaniel Banks of the American Party (aka the “Know Nothings”) joined with the “Opposition Party” (opposed to Democrats) to be elected Speaker after two months and 133 ballots.   

In 1859, on the eve of the Civil War, amid delays by filibuster, Rep. William Pennington of New Jersey was elected as Speaker on the 44th ballot — the second member since Clay to be elected Speaker as a freshman. Unlike Clay, he lacked credentials and charisma and served just one term as a member and Speaker.   

Since the Civil War, the country settled back into the more traditional two-party system of Democrats and Republicans, and strong Speakers in the Clay mold reemerged, such as Republicans Thomas Brackett Reed of Maine (Czar Speaker) and “Uncle Joe” Cannon of Illinois. After the revolt against Cannon in 1910 for being too powerful, subsequent Democratic Speakers like James Beauchamp (“Champ”) Clark of Missouri relied more on their majority leaders to carry the party’s message and round-up floor votes. 

A coalition of southern Democrats and northern Republicans ran the House for many years through powerful committee chairs overseen by strong Speakers like Sam Rayburn (D-Texas). The coalition was eventually broken in the 1960s with the Democratic presidencies of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and their New Frontier and Great Society programs. Democratic Speakers John McCormack (Mass.) and Carl Albert (Okla.) were loyal helpmates.  

In the 1980s and ’90s, Speakers Jim Wright (D-Texas) and Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) eventually ran into trouble over their leadership styles, ethics problems and forceful promotion of their policy priorities. Others, like Speakers John Boehner (R-Ohio), Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) were driven-out by dissidents within their own party. 

If we have learned anything from the history of the Speakership, it is that both intra- and interparty divisions can turn an election of Speaker into a nasty and often prolonged process. But ultimately, the factionalism on display in Congress is simply a reflection of the polarization and even anger of the electorate. 

Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year staff veteran of the Congress, culminating as minority staff director of the House Rules Committee (1989-94) and chief of staff of the full committee (1995-97). He is author of “Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial” (2000), and “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays” (2018). The views expressed are solely his own.