The Rise of the Front Man
It is universally agreed
that the resignation of Rep. Bob Livingston as speaker-designate and his
replacement by Rep. Denny Hastert is a Bad Thing. For starters, the
annunciation of Hastert, a politician who doesn't cast a shadow, exposes the
anorexia in the top ranks of the House Republican Caucus. The Republicans are
so strapped for talent that they had to recruit a politician no one outside
Capitol Hill had even heard of five minutes ago. (Incidentally, the House GOP's
top four leaders are now ex-wrestling coach Hastert, ex-college professor Dick
Armey, ex-exterminator Tom DeLay, and ex-football player J.C. Watts. Who says
American politics is dominated by lawyers?)
And, as pundits are
fretting, Hastert's emergence also reinforces the crisis over "the politics of
personal destruction" (to use the day's catch phrase). The sexual puritanism of
the GOP's own right wing undid Livingston, and Hastert cakewalked into the
speakership only because he is--fingers crossed--above reproach. It's uncertain
whether sexual litmus testing will endure, but for the moment Washington is
anxious. Many pols and ex-pols are predicting that smart, charismatic folks
such as Livingston will now shun public office.
There is another, less talked about, reason why the
ascension of Hastert is alarming. Call it the Front Man Syndrome. Most people
would agree that in a well-run democracy, political power ought to be
transparent. By this I mean that those who hold nominally powerful jobs
ought to exercise correspondingly real power. Title and authority should
be directly related. The president should be the most powerful person in the
executive branch, the chief justice of the Supreme Court the most powerful in
the judicial branch, the speaker of the House the most powerful in the House,
etc. This transparency serves democracy, because it enables voters to hold the
responsible officials accountable for their actions. You cannot hide. (American
politics has not always been transparent. In the golden age of political
machines, for example, bosses often occupied ostensibly unimportant jobs and
left the glorious titles to their marionettes.)
But transparency may be a
casualty of last week. If Democrats or Republicans fear that their leaders will
be subject to personal attack--and they do--then there is a huge incentive for
the parties to vest nominal power in squeaky-clean nonentities and hide real
power behind the scenes.
H astert may be Exhibit 1. "Coach," as he's fondly known,
has a history of modest service to his party and his district, delivering pork,
opposing Democratic health-care bills, etc. Mostly he has been a faithful
deputy whip to DeLay, helping "The Hammer" count votes in the service of the
conservative cause. DeLay mobilized his whip organization to ensure his
deputy's election as speaker, and Democratic members are already wondering if
Coach will be The Hammer's tool.
It may be that Hastert will be thoroughly
independent of DeLay--Hastert's allies assure doubters that he is his own
man--but what if he's not? House Republicans will have placed a clean,
good-natured speaker at the front of their parade, a bland and acceptable
public face for the party. Hastert won't cripple the party with a too-big mouth
and too-big ideas, as Newt Gingrich did, and he won't cripple it with an
embarrassing history, as Livingston did. Meanwhile, DeLay will retain the only
true power base in the House Republican Caucus: a 60-odd member whip
organization, the best access to corporate campaign contributions, and a
fearsome personality. The whip, who knows he lacks the charm and cooperative
instincts required for speakership, will be able to run his operation quietly,
behind closed doors. DeLay's job will be secure, and he himself will remain
(mostly) sheltered from strict public scrutiny.
This is, of course, pessimistic speculation. It is
far too early to know whether Hastert will be DeLay's puppet. And even if
Hastert is DeLay's puppet, that won't necessarily mean that Congress has
entered an era of puppetry. (A sample size of one does not an era make.) Still,
it's yet one more reason--as if we need another--to worry about what happened
last week.
