Boehner has earlier expressed his objective to continue the tradition of the rule and honor its spirit, but earlier this week, a bill that would expend the government's ability to protect historical battlefield was passed without the support of a majority of the House Republicans. Many of the important upcoming legislations, such as those on budget, immigration, and gun control, would not be voted on because the Republicans has yet to agree on these issues, if the Hastert Rule were to be observed.
The Republican party is currently split between the "purist group" who opposes any forms of compromise, the liberal "Rhinos,"and the rest who are refraining from voting against the purists to avoid being labeled as traitors. The Haster Rule benefits the Republican Reps by preventing them from having to make tough decisions during votes.
On the other hand, Jonathan Bernstein, a political scientist, claimed that Republicans Reps would benefit the most by ditching the Haster Rule. The moderate gets to vote with the bipartisan majority in the Senate, the conservatives get to vote with the "purist" without actually killing a bill, and "the true believers get to complain about sellouts and RINOs — they love doing that!"
If Bernstein's claim is correct, then Boehner has done quite a good job at keeping his party happy and thus being a good speaker. Even Hastert himself has periodically violated the rule that is named after him (click here to learn more if you are interested). GOP strategist John Freehery, however, held a different opinion and said “conservatives are terrified, and they should be, that if Boehner decides to throw in with 70 Republicans and 150 Democats, they have no voice anymore.”
Nonetheless, this kind of anti-Hastert Rule spirit undoubtedly threatens the already fragile unity among the House Republicans. From the po
int of view of the Republican Party, would the Republicans, in the long run, be benefitted by walking away from the Hastert Rule? To a Rep, is it more important to be able to vote on one's conscience or to abide by the party disciplines? Although Boehner is doing his job as a Speaker to facilitate the legislative process, is he doing so at the sacrifice of his political career?
Click here to learn more.
3 comments:
Well, I don't think breaking the Hastert Rule (or majority) is necessarily a bad idea. It seems like it slows down the legislative process if the Republicans aren't united. Still, I suppose there are arguably benefits if the law is changed slowly. However, as was said, this really isn't an official rule the Republicans have to follow and Boehner really shouldn't feel restricted by it.
If the Republicans choose to walk away from this rule, they run the risk of losing whatever party unity they have as of now. Party support for Boehner would probably go down if he continues to violate this tradition. However, I personally believe it is more important to vote on one's conscience than to abide by party rules if one feels voting one way would best benefit the people. Democracy should not be hampered by this.
With the amount of important legislation that has to be decided (some more quickly than others), I think Boehner should allow for flexibility regarding the Hastert Rule because the United States doesn't have time for lengthy party infighting. It's unfortunate that representatives can be labeled "traitors" for voting as they see fit, but I suppose that is just the way political parties are.
With regards to diverging from the Hastert rule, I think it wouldn't be too much of bad idea to do just that. As Eddie already mentioned, the GOP has been constantly bickering amongst themselves for a quite a while now, and I think at this point, doing anything that will make them appear more favorable in the public eye is most important. It may make them look more divided and whatnot, but in order to change their image as a party, they might have to suffer some more before they come to a consensus about what they stand for and believe in. Until they can TRULY unite, nobody will see the "real" republican party.
To a representative, following one's conscience should certainly be the most important, but the fact that it conflicts with the party's ideals and goals is what's making the whole situation slightly perverse... Should not people's consciences and their party's disciplines be more closely linked than they are now?
I will concede that, in essence, the Hastert Rule is well-meaning as an effort meant to create solidarity among the GOP. However, in this situation, the GOP seems comparable to a frat. While the traditions and rituals of the party are a part of its culture, there is a point at which the hazing has gone too far. Although unity is more important than ever for the GOP, it should not be forced. In other words, members should not feel obliged to compensate their justified opinions in an effort to ensure the approval of their fellow party members, especially if it means keeping from doing what is best for the country.
Post a Comment