The Speaker’s Race
The grassroots of our party—at least locally—seems to be moving toward a consensus that the selection of the next Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives should be made by the Republican caucus. As part of this process, a draft letter has been circulating locally within the last few days among Harris County precinct chairs calling for our local and statewide party leaders to call for such a caucus. Many precinct chairs already have signed the letter. From reports I am receiving from other counties, similar resolutions or letters are being circulated around the state.
As I’ve tried to make clear, I don’t know or endorse any of the currently announced candidates for this office—I just want the House to choose the best legislative leader among them to address the priorities facing the legislature this session: redistricting; the budget; border security; and ballot security. If, with 99 members in the House, 19 members in the Senate, and the Governor, Republicans can’t craft, pass, and sign into law the legislation needed to address these issues, the grassroots who worked to elect these Republicans will work to defeat them—regardless of who becomes the next Speaker. So, the members should be urged to choose wisely.
That said, I believe the proposal for a Republican caucus has reached the point that our House members need to listen to the will of the grassroots and hold the caucus. I know that, under the passion of the moment, a secret-ballot vote of caucus members may inevitably lead to the selection of a new Republican candidate for Speaker, and some may oppose holding a caucus for that reason (and/or because it destroys the prior custom of the House selection process), but the people who elected this House want the 99 Republicans to control the selection of the Speaker, and that desire should be heeded.
However, I would make one change to the proposal currently circulating among our Harris County precinct chairs. I would propose that the caucus continue voting until two-thirds of the caucus agree on one candidate. I make this proposal without knowledge of what the bylaws of the caucus allow or require, but I believe this type of approach would more likely lead to the selection of a leader who can work with all of the factions within our party, and the House as a whole, to pass our legislative priorities. Moreover, such a deliberative process will promote the creation of relationships between the 22 new members and the other members of the caucus, which will be needed to hit the ground running in January.
On the other hand, if we select the new Speaker by a plurality, or slim majority, of the caucus, the new Speaker will start with only a third of the House as his or her base of support and will likely be beholden to one faction of the House and our party, rather than to the entire Republican caucus. We should not force such an outcome on our members in the House; for if we do, we could be unintentionally sowing the seeds of dissention, which could lead to a deadlock in the House on many of our priorities for this session.
In defense of Moderation—rightly understood
The proposal I just made is really a call for moderation in this process—not a call to be indecisive or to needlessly compromise, but a call for the exercise of care and wisdom in making the judgments that will be needed to select the right person to be the next Speaker. Over the last two years a tremendous amount of welcome passion has invigorated Conservatism and the GOP in this country and state, but to turn that passion into constructive action we need to begin exercising some prudence and wisdom.
Over the last 46 years, we Conservatives haven’t always valued prudence and wisdom. In 1964, Barry Goldwater (whom I revere) made a mistake—a mistake which the late William F. Buckley, Jr., describes in a chapter of one his final books, “Flying High: Remembering Barry Goldwater.” In that chapter, Buckley recognized the galvanizing effect that the memorable line from Goldwater’s 1964 Acceptance Speech had on the Conservative Movement: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” But, Buckley also recognized, in hindsight, that the embrace of “extremism” and the criticism of “moderation,” didn’t sit well with many Americans who had fought the Nazis, supported the containment of Communism, recoiled at the actions of men like Bull Connor, and embraced the principles that they heard in church each Sunday. When coupled with Goldwater’s stance against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Buckley concedes that many Americans (and almost all African Americans) formed negative opinions about Conservatism and the GOP, which we have not been able to shake—even 30 years after Reagan’s first election, and even when many people in poll after poll identify themselves as “conservative”.
Of course, like every other struggle, this fight between unbridled passion and moderation is built into our DNA. Since at least the late 1780s, American Conservative thought has embraced the thinking of two men, who in their day did not like each other and who had different worldviews: Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine. Both men supported the cause of Americans against Britain, but divided over the French Revolution. It is their division over the French Revolution that is most instructive: in the passion of the times, Paine saw the advancement of his fight for liberty and a more just society, and that all means taken to advance those causes were proper; meanwhile, Burke saw in the unchecked and unguided passion that was consuming France the seeds of destruction, not just of monarchies, but of French and European societies, and that such destruction would not lead to more liberty or more justice.
Burke was right—each faction literally tried to liquidate the other in the struggle for a “better society” and much of the upheaval that would convulse Europe until the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 can be traced back to the unchecked passions of that time in France. As for Paine, who was initially hailed by the French zealots as a leader and elected to its Assembly, he was condemned to death during the spiraling hysteria that he had at first supported, and he stayed for months in a French prison waiting for the guillotine until pleas from James Monroe finally got him released.
What that history lesson should teach us is that, in the days and weeks ahead as we fight together with our elected officials to fix what is wrong with our country and our state, we need to keep our heads about us. We need to adhere to “justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue” as George Mason and James Madison said. We need to avoid the temptation to destroy each other in the quest for the perfect; but, instead, seize the moment to work together to create a good and better society that promotes, and lives by,our principles. To do that, we need to retain the passion for the fight that fueled Paine, but we need to guide that passion with the wisdom of Burke.
Let’s start this process with the Speaker’s Race.
