Change from Above: Can the New House Leadership Change Politics as Usual?
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
At the beginning of the month, the Republican House delegation selected a new Majority Leader, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH). When Tom DeLay resigned his post among legal battles, Majority Whip and Acting Majority Leader Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) seemed like a shoo-in. Yet, this was not to be. Soon, two other candidates entered the race, Boehner and Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ).
There were critical differences between the candidates. Blunt, as the establishment candidate, secured a number of endorsements, but fell short of the support needed to win. His greatest shortcoming was that he essentially represented more of the same; like his predecessor, DeLay, he had close ties to the K-Street lobbying community and had no issue with earmarks. But unlike DeLay, he had fewer redeeming characteristics, such as DeLay’s firm leadership style that held together conservatives and moderates in Congress.
At the opposite of the spectrum was Arizona Republican John Shadegg. The son of a Goldwater adviser, Shadegg was a member of the revolutionary class of 1994 that swept into Congress on a platform of reform. But unlike other politicians, Shadegg has kept that spirit of reform alive; he strongly opposes earmarks, has no real lobbying ties, and, in the spirit of his purist approach, voted against big-government programs like No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. Shadegg managed to secure the blessings of important moderates and conservatives alike. He also garnered the endorsements of critical conservative groups, such as the National Review, Human Events, and Townhall.com, among others.
Boehner is not a reformer in the sense that Shadegg is, but he is a better candidate than Blunt to clean-up the House. While not free of lobbying connections, Boehner has never used earmarks and opposes such pork-barrel politics. Moreover, he presented himself as a leadership-outsider (despite having been involved in the late ‘90s) who would represent a needed change of face amidst corruption.
In the end, Blunt did not have the votes he claimed he did. 117 votes were needed to win the post, and there was no winner on the first ballot. Blunt received 110, Boehner 79, and Shadegg 40. But since Boehner had embraced Shadegg’s reform movement, Shadegg’s supporters went overwhelmingly to Boehner when their man was forced to drop out of the race as per House rules. In the second ballot, Blunt actually fell to 109 votes, while Boehner surged with 122, thus becoming the new House Majority Leader.
While Boehner is not the ideal reformer, there is no doubt that he is better than Blunt in this capacity. And while Shadegg lost, it was not necessarily because Republicans disagreed with his message. Rather, as Robert Novak claims, “Shadegg’s entry into the race may have come too late,” and after too many had already made previous commitments to Blunt and Boehner.
But even though the best man lost, Shadegg had an enormous role in the race, and thus, in determining the direction of the House GOP Leadership. Shadegg’s surge in support, despite his late entry, made reform the key issue in the election. This led Boehner to take an important step, as Townhall.com’s Tim Chapman states, “by championing the reform spirit that Shadegg injected into the race.” And had Boehner not embraced Shadegg’s message and proposals, there may have been little difference between Boehner and Blunt. Blunt exacerbated this situation by refusing to debate or even meet with his opponents in public Instead, he ran what Novak calls, “A campaign of inevitability” that portrayed an image of arrogance. This only made the calls for a leadership change stronger.
What is now to be seen is whether Boehner can change things around Washington. His opposition to earmarks is badly needed in a time of increasing spending by Congressional Republicans. Moreover, Boehner may be able to help the GOP’s image, something that has been hurt by the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals. Indeed, as the Heritage Foundation’s Mike Franc says, “Boehner’s elevation comes at what is undoubtedly the most perilous time for House Republicans since they regained the majority in 1994.” If Boehner can effectively manage the Republican majority, something that eluded Blunt during his stint as Acting Majority Leader, the GOP may be able to not only rebuild its sagging approval ratings, but push through meaningful policy, such as tax reform and ANWR.
Another important question revolves around Shadegg’s future. The six-term Congressman gave up his position as the head of the Republican Policy Committee, feeling that it would not be fair to hold his position while running for another; Blunt retained his post as Majority Whip. In conservative circles, Shadegg has emerged as a key player in Congress. Indeed, the Arizona Republic claims, “Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., isn’t the new House majority leader. But he is a new national hero to conservatives.”
Though not in the elected leadership, Shadegg may still rise to a position of power. Townhall.com’s Tim Chapman writes, “According to Hill sources, conservatives are looking for a way to incorporate Shadegg into the House leadership structure in an unelected, informal capacity. The term, ‘Assistant Majority Leader’ has been used. This informal position would be a political winner for the new House leadership team. By elevating Shadegg, leadership would signal to a growing and energetic portion of the caucus that the reform message--and the ideas and proposals contained therein--will not only be listened to, but acted upon.” This may be an ideal way for Boehner to help reform Washington. Chapman further writes, “Shadegg would serve as a valuable conservative temperature gauge.” If appointed to such a position, Shadegg would not be the first. From 2000-2004, former Rep. Rob Portman (R-OH) served as unofficial White House liaison. He now serves as U.S. Trade Representative. Like Portman, Shadegg may prove to be an important resource.
Many in the rank-and-file strongly support a leadership capacity for Shadegg. In an unscientific poll of readers by Human Events, an astounding 94.9% thought Shadegg should have a leadership job. Many are feel this way because they see Shadegg’s influence as key in any effort to clean up Washington politics, especially a Republican effort. Many conservatives agree with Shadegg’s recent forecast that, “If this Congress does not abolish earmarks, this will soon be a Democratic Congress.”
But whether Shadegg will actually be appointed to the position is still unclear. In interviews to both Human Events and National Review, Boehner has been ambiguous about what Shadegg’s role in the new leadership organization will be. However, Shadegg recently said he believed it unlikely he would receive an unofficial post. Perhaps there is a conflict between expediency and idealism. Chapman states, “There may be hesitancy to bring in an idealistic conservative whose allegiance will always be to principle rather than politics--being in House leadership unfortunately means making political decisions sometimes at the expense of the ideal policy--but having the counsel of a member who is not bound by the trappings of leadership could prove immensely valuable to the new House team.” Cleaning up Washington may require exactly that.
