Texas, of all places, shows how Congress can beat extremism
Kevin McCarthy’s historic and ignominious removal as speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives underscores the institution’s severe dysfunction.
At present the U.S. House is bedeviled by a toxic combination of narrow partisan majorities and increasingly extreme and irresponsible legislators at the outer edges of both parties who often appear more interested in advocating for fringe policies, living in the limelight and grifting off chaos and controversy than in legislating for the common good of the vast majority of the American people.
Barring a paradigm shift in outlook and strategy, the U.S. House’s next speaker is unlikely to fare much better than McCarthy.
They will be faced with the same impossible task of trying to reconcile the competing, contradictory and changing demands and preferences of the Republican caucus members within a context of a hyper-polarized (Republican vs. Democrat) legislative environment within which the speaker needs almost every Republican on board to effectively run the House (there are 221 Republican and 212 Democratic representatives, with two vacancies). However, just because McCarthy had to suffer the constant machinations and extortions of a dozen or two hardright and/or self-serving Republicans throughout his brief tenure as speaker does not mean his successor needs to do so; if they are willing to adopt a paradigm shift in how they approach congressional leadership.
And, for a how-to-manual of what this new paradigm could look like, they need look no further than the Lone Star State to see that there is another way to run a legislature that does not require the speaker to
be continuously at the mercy of a miniscule number (only 8 out of 221 Republicans voted to remove McCarthy) of Republican outliers.
Since 2009 the Texas House has had an average Republican majority of 14 representatives (89 of 150). Throughout this period the Republican caucus also has had a number of hardright members that almost always has been larger in number than the Republican Party’s majority, meaning that the Texas speakers faced on paper the same potential challenges as McCarthy. However, when faced with the option of continuously catering to a minority band of hard-right Republicans whose policy positions differed substantially on many issues from the majority of the Republican representatives and the option of not being able to lead or pass legislation, the three most recent Republican Speakers (Joe Straus from 2009 to 2018, Dennis Bonnen from 2019 to 2020, and Dade Phelan from 2021 to the present) rejected both options and chose a third way: build an informal coalition with moderate Democrats.
Texas Republican speakers from Straus to Phelan have successfully run the Texas House from the center-right, with legislation that generally reflects the preferences of the House’s center-right conservative Republicans. In contrast, the GOP’s hard-right members have often been left on the outside looking in, with an overall level of legislative success that is less than that of centrist Democrats. One of the secrets to this success is maintaining a good working relationship with House Democrats, especially the more centrist Democrats. One tool to maintain good relations is by killing some bills pushed out of the more conservative Texas Senate that these Democrats (along with many Republicans) vehemently oppose. Another is by appointing Democratic allies to chair legislative committees. Currently about a quarter of Texas House committees are chaired by Democrats compared to zero percent of U.S. House committees.
This good working relationship has allowed Republican speakers to both pass legislation that is supported by a substantial majority of Republicans as well as to lead the House from a position of strength, with little worry that a rump band of hard-right Republicans could topple them at any moment.
For instance, supporters of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and others are advocating for Phelan’s removal when the Texas Legislature reconvenes next week for a special session on school choice/vouchers. If Phelan relied solely on the 84 House Republicans to retain his speakership (as McCarthy relied on the 220 Republicans), he would have serious cause for concern, since a mere 11 Republicans voting for removal (in concert with all Democrats, as with McCarthy) could end his speakership. However, Phelan’s good working with relationship with Democrats, combined with his majority support within the Republican caucus, means that he has nothing to worry about later this month nor in the foreseeable future.
Some members of the U.S. House — both Republicans and Democrats — are increasingly frustrated by the way that hyper-partisanship, narrow partisan majorities, and intransigent extremists and grifters in both parties have combined to make it increasingly difficult to govern and pass legislation supported by a broad majority in the center right, center, and center left.
For them, Texas offers a third way. To function, however, this third way has two principal prerequisites. First, the Republican or Democratic speaker must be willing and able to work with moderate members from the minority party in an honest and productive manner (something McCarthy did not do). Second, the members of the minority party must be willing to put aside partially the goal of scoring ideological points via hyperpartisan behavior and compromise.
Today, this paradigm shift would require the next Republican speaker to be willing to reach out and work with moderate Democrats, and moderate Democrats to be willing to work with the Republican speaker. This would be a change for the U.S. House. But it’s simply what we are used to seeing in the Texas House.