"The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
In light of the new call from the House Freedom From Thought Caucus for a new Speaker, my thoughts began to wander, as it tends to do, towards unusual thoughts and outside the box ideas. When this happens in relation to politics, I eventually get around to the above quote from the brilliant Douglas Adams. It marinated in my mind for a few moments and I came up with this idea…Why don't we apply this theory to the election of the Speaker of the House?
What really spurred it on was a quote from Congressman Derrick Van Orden (R WI-3) in regards to the House Freedom Caucus:
"If we don't maintain this majority and grow it, it's gonna be Bob Good and the Freedom Caucus's fault," Van Orden said. "Flat out. Period. It's their fault. They're more destructive to Congress than anybody, and they're going to wear that as a badge of pride, when in fact, it's a badge of stupidity and the inability to do strategic thinking."
Van Orden is no stranger to blunt language. He has been targeted for calling out all sorts of members of Congress in a way that is less than flattering. Admittedly, it is very Trump like, but the notable difference is that Van Orden shies away from the overly inflammatory hyperbole (for the most part) and stays away from the childish nicknames (which I also engage in, but I'm not running for anything).
I have had a few positive interactions with Van Orden on social media and he has assured me that he has no desire to be Speaker. Now, wouldn't that be the ideal candidate if we take Adams' philosophy to heart? A man who has precisely zero desire to do the job of Speaker would be the best man for the job. He wouldn't care about making friends in the job. He wouldn't care about the petty games that the Speaker is frequently drawn into. He would only care about doing the job and getting back to his life. If that doesn't scream Van Orden, I don't know what does.
The theory isn't without some flaws. Involuntary servitude is not the most libertarian idea I've ever had. However, there is nothing saying the nominee would have to spend a massive amount of time in the job. Absolutely worst case scenario is two years. All members of Congress already are comfortable with that length of commitment anyway. Why not add a job that they might be very good at? True, keeping the GOP members of the House all pulling in the same direction is worse than herding cats over the past couple of Congresses, but if you have someone who isn't about playing the games, wouldn't that give them a degree of freedom (no pun intended) behind close doors to metaphorically crack some skulls?
The biggest thing that the GOP needs right now is a leader that isn't afraid to take hostages (metaphorically) and pull off the special operations that are required to turn the political right into the, mostly, unified force that is required to claw back against the wave of liberalism. Sounds like a job for a Navy SEAL to me…
As one of van Orden's constituents, I find this a great idea. Wisconsin politically benefited when Paul Ryan was speaker of the House, and Wisconsin would benefit with Van Orden as speaker.
No comments:
Post a Comment