Arthur I. Cyr: Turmoil and trends after Paul Ryan’s retirement
The announcement by Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan (R-WI) that he will not seek reelection in 2018 is important but not entirely surprising. His campaign war chest is substantial, as always, and until the April 11 public retirement announcement, he has been characteristically active. Nevertheless, public as well as private speculation was growing that he would bow out this year.
The stated reason is that he wants to spend more time with his family. Observers rightly regard Ryan as a committed family man. He and wife Janna have three teenage children, a particularly challenging period in life.
Yet the relentless pressures of the post of House Speaker were also clearly a factor in his decision. His grimly determined demeanor of recent months provides visible evidence of the strain involved. Ryan also faced at least the possibility of election defeat in November.
Beyond personal considerations, structural changes in Congress make life tough for any House Speaker. Since the turmoil of the 1968 election, which included the assassination of Democratic presidential contender Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY), both parties have embraced state primary elections to nominate their candidates.
In theory, the reform was supposed to make the whole process more fair and transparent. In 1968, RFK and rival Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-MN) slugged out a bitter battle in the few available primaries, while Vice President Hubert Humphrey sewed up the nomination through the route of party caucuses and party bosses.
In practice, relatively few voters participate in primaries. They are often intense activists, left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans. Reconciling the rigid zealots now populating Congress steadily gets harder.
Ryan’s predecessor Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) stunned everyone, including allies, by announcing in September 2015 he was retiring from Congress. His tour of service in the top leadership post had been particularly, painfully difficult.
Republican right-wing zealots reacted with glee that Boehner would soon be gone. Their outlook is essentially narrow, shortsighted and ultimately destructive.
In 2013, Republicans managed to shut down the government for 16 days as part of the effort to derail the Affordable Care Act. Democrats led by President Barack Obama used the Republican effort to political advantage. Boehner’s move headed off a shutdown.
The practice of holding the federal budget hostage to controversial partisan party maneuvers has now gone on for some years. In 1994, Republicans took control of the U.S. House of Representatives after 40 years in minority status. New Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) dramatically accelerated the trend of shifting that office from a relatively nonpartisan to highly partisan pulpit, a marked departure.
Then and later, White House Democrats and Congressional Republicans played an escalating game of budgetary chicken. The federal government did shut down briefly. In the political and public media maneuvering, President Bill Clinton — a brilliant political operator — was able to put the onus squarely on the Gingrich Republicans.
Publicly cool and politically cunning, Clinton moved ahead in the public opinion polls. He was helped by emphasizing fiscal restraint. In the 1996 presidential election, he defeated Republican nominee Senator Bob Dole of Kansas.
Sam Rayburn (D-TX) remains the longest-serving Speaker of the House. From the 1940s into the 1960s, he successfully practiced bipartisanship, despite the difficult politics of that era. Rayburn possessed exceptional political skills, but he had the advantage that both parties then were politically diverse and pragmatic.
Additionally, we expected presidents to be executives, not pure celebrities.
— Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of “After the Cold War.” Contact firstname.lastname@example.org.