HOME / chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics.

"I Am Not A Flunky"Speaker Hastert declares his independence. Again.

ByTimothy Noah Posted Monday, Jan. 3, 2005, at 7:47 PM ET

In a story headlined, "Quietly But Firmly, Hastert Asserts His Power," the Jan. 3 New York Times sought to dispel a misperception that has arisen concerning House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R., Ill. The misperception is that Hastert is a mere front man to the person who really controls the House, Majority Leader Tom "the Hammer" DeLay, R., Tex.:

RSS

He was asked who was the true power in the House, he or Mr. DeLay. The speaker is not given to using the pronoun, "I"; ever the coach, his sentences are sprinkled with "we," which is how he began.
"We sit back," he said, "and we do the things that we have to do to make this place work. And you know, Tom can talk about issues that are important to him, but basically we make those decisions that are important, I think."
And who is we?
"My office, yes, I do," Mr. Hastert replied, without hesitation. He let out a little chuckle. "It's an imperial we."

The Times has done a great public service in clarifying this point, because when Hastert tried to correct this same misperception in his autobiography, Speaker: Lessons From Forty Years in Coaching and Politics, published last year, it didn't take. Here's an Associated Press account from Aug. 3, 2004:

As speaker, Hastert tends to operate out of the public spotlight, while Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, the powerful majority leader, is a more outspoken conservative.

"There is a perception in the liberal press that DeLay calls the shots, and I march to his instructions," Hastert writes. "That's what the Democrats would like people to believe."

Two years earlier, on July 9, 2002, Hastert had explained to the Washington Post that nobody really believed anymore that DeLay was the power behind the throne:

[Then-House Minority Leader Dick] Gephardt says that Hastert has a difficult job, keeping in check the hard-right characters and strong personalities of the conference he is leading. It is a common view among Democrats, and carries the implicit notion that Hastert is merely a front man for [then-Majority Whip] DeLay and [then-Majority Leader Dick] Armey. They are arguably no more conservative than Hastert, but they are considerably less popular.

Hastert winces at this notion and shakes his head. "I think that might have been the perception the first year," Hastert says. "But it's certainly not the perception any more, I don't think."

Five months before that, in a story headlined, "Hastert Asserts Independence" Roll Call explained on Feb. 21, 2002 that Hastert had recently "asserted himself on two major issues," both of them procedural, and that this was terribly significant.

Three years earlier, on Jan. 6, 1999, the New York Times quoted Rep. David Dreier, R.-Calif., explaining that Hastert, who'd just been chosen to be the next House speaker, was his own man. "No one is controlling him," Dreier said.

There's a very real possibility that Hastert and his fellow Republicans in Congress will spend the rest of his speakership denying that Hastert is DeLay's flunky. But would it be necessary to declare over and over again that Hastert is independent and powerful and not a front man if Hastert really were independent and powerful and not a front man? Just asking.

E-mail Timothy Noah at .

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.

COMMENTS

Remarks from the Fray:

It's a political maxim that when you allow the opposition to define the terms in which you frame your own discussions, you are almost certainly irretrievably lost.

Hastert's problem is partially that he (after Gingrich) was deliberately chosen to be innocuous. After Gingrich's lightning rod spectacle, the Republican majority needed someone that reflected their clubby backroom operational sensitivities rather than someone that served as both leader and speaker. They got precisely what they wanted in Hastert—he is many things, but leader isn't one of them.

Hastert meant to say the 'schizophrenic we' not the 'imperial we', because the truth is he isn't running a damned thing. The schizophrenia would be the delusions of grandeur that allows Hastert to believe that he can call the shots when he has a majority leader who can change the ethics rules so that he can't be removed from his position after his party came into power charging ethics abuse, and promising to remedy the situation with iron clad ethics and policies. Let's see Hastert try to exert that kid of influence and see how fast DeLay slaps him down.

The truth is that Hastert's repeated claims that he is 'not a flunky' rings about as hollow as Nixon's claim that he is not a crook, and for the same reason—when the opposition frames the way in which you address the issues you're already losing because you're playing the game their way.

And I'll bet that suits DeLay just fine.

--Demosthenes2

(To reply, click here)

At least not here in Texas, anyway. If DeLay isn't the "real" power in Congress them someone forgot to tell all his staff and fans down here. They crow endlessly about the "Hammer" and how he gets his way. Like changing the ethics rules to allow him to keep a house post. It would be interesting to see DeLay and Hastert square off in a real power struggle, but I doubt it will happen. Hastert knows better. Even if DeLay can't become speaker (for appearances sake) he has the power to put a dagger into just about any congressman's back. Hasterth, he "doth protest too much" about his lack of power.

--fozzy

(To reply, click here)

(1/4)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES