Challenging the power of the Speaker

In chapter 11 of Brewer and Maisel, they recount the Speakership of "Czar" Cannon (Ill, 1903-1911). With the new division of the Republican party through the rise of the Progressive movement, "preferences within the majority party in the House shifted from homogeneous to heterogeneous. Speaker Cannon, however, refused to acknowledge the new wing within his party. He wielded his exclusive power to appoint committee seats and chair positions, and he exercised his power as the chair of the Rules Committee to reward loyalists and punish traitors" (345). Eventually, the Progressive Republicans worked with Democrats to strip Speaker Cannon's position on the Rules Committee. 

This is very similar to the recent division created within the Republican Party with the rise of the Tea Party movement. The House Freedom Caucus represents the ~40 members of the House most tied to the Tea Party. This NPR article, titled "What Kind of Speaker Does the House Freedom Caucus Want?" explains that the Freedom Caucus members were frustrated that Boehner would not let them have more input on which bills get a vote and what amendments get added. They also wanted better committee assignments in the more powerful committees, such as Appropriations, Rules, and Ways & Means.  It was largely the Freedom Caucus' opposition to Speaker Boehner that led him to resign. In resigning, Boehner said, “It had become clear to me that this prolonged leadership turmoil would do irreparable harm to the institution.” 

The frustration of a new subgroup within the Republican Party towards a Speaker that would not let them have more of a voice is not a new phenomenon. Moreover, it reminds us that such a subgroup has the ability to undermine even the power of the Speaker.