海角大神

Why couldn鈥檛 John Boehner control the rebels within his own party?

This question is now moot, of course 鈥� Speaker Boehner announced last week that he鈥檒l leave his leadership post and Congress at the end of October. He鈥檚 made it clear he was tired of trying to rodeo the herd of cats that is the GOP House caucus. He was particularly weary of attempting to placate the hard-line conservatives who have pushed to shut down the government over various issues since Republicans won control of the House in 2010.

鈥淭he Bible says beware of false prophets. And there are people out there, you know, spreading noise about how much can get done. I mean this whole notion that we鈥檙e going to shut down the government to get rid of Obamacare in 2013 鈥� this plan never had a chance,鈥� Sunday on CBS鈥檚 鈥淔ace the Nation.鈥�

But here鈥檚 the issue at hand: Boehner was speaker of the House, and the rebels were not. The speaker of the House is an important and presumably powerful person. Why couldn鈥檛 Boehner keep these folks in line?

The rebels were unified, for one thing. While the conservative House Freedom Caucus consists of only 37 or so members, they knew what they wanted. The rest of the House GOP wasn鈥檛 always so sure how to respond to hard-liner concerns. And it鈥檚 a truism in politics that on many issues, it is the most interested faction that wins.

And the speakership is not what it used to be. It has been decades since a speaker such as Tip O鈥橬eill operated as a preeminent force within the party.

The irony is that the two great parties that run the nation are more ideologically sorted than ever before 鈥� but that does not mean they are more disciplined.

鈥淯S political parties are not strong in the top-down sense. Neither presidents nor congressional leaders have a lot of control over backbenchers in their parties,鈥� , an associate professor of public policy at Georgetown University, in a reaction posted on the "Mischiefs of Faction" blog.

Well-intentioned political reforms may have played a part in weakening the speakership in particular. Taken together, they鈥檝e weakened the disciplinary tools available to a House leader at a time when the Republican Party is increasingly split between restive conservatives and an establishment faction used to governing on its own terms.

These reforms are the four P's, , Brookings senior fellow in governance studies: primaries, parties, privacy, and pork.

The problem with primaries is that many if not most GOP members are more concerned with a possible primary challenge from the right in their own district than they are at the prospect of losing a committee because of to speaker discipline. Exhibit A is Eric Cantor, the ex-House majority leader who lost to a little-known tea party candidate, Dave Brat, in 2014.

The problem with parties is that they no longer control access to the biggest sources of campaign cash. Billionaires such as the Koch brothers have rewritten the rules on the financing of running for office, lessening rebels鈥� fears of being left penniless for general elections.

As for privacy, there isn鈥檛 any, in a political sense. Speakers used to be able to discipline members out of the public eye 鈥� by such methods as suddenly locating their offices next to steam pipes in the Cannon House Office Building basement. That鈥檚 not possible in the age of Twitter and Facebook sharing.

And pork has been largely eliminated as a congressional perk. This may be the biggest and most direct reduction in a speaker鈥檚 leverage. No longer do members scramble to insert line items funding bridges, highways, defense projects, and so forth in appropriations bills, because of rule changes and budget cuts. In any case, many of the tea party-oriented Republicans were elected on a promise to end such business-as-usual.

鈥淭he process of 鈥榣ogrolling鈥� in Congress helped them do their business for many years. When it was gone so was congressional effectiveness,鈥� writes Ms. Kamarck.

None of these structural changes will reverse with a new person in the speaker鈥檚 chair. That鈥檚 a big reason why the party dissent and rebelliousness that marked Boehner鈥檚 tenure is likely to continue beyond 2015.

Speakers used to be autocrats: Speaker Joseph Cannon was called 鈥淐zar Cannon鈥� during his 1903 to 1911 occupation of the office. Presiding over a voice vote, Cannon once reportedly said, 鈥淭he ayes make the most noise, but the noes have it.鈥�

No longer. Speaker of the House is the first political office discussed in the Constitution, prior to the president. That鈥檚 far from its position in today鈥檚 American political hierarchy.

鈥淚n the new tribal world of radical politics, the first constitutional office has lost its luster,鈥� , a longtime resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, in The Atlantic.