Back in November, your editor explained why, contrary to the views of some conservative reformers irrationally exuberant over Republicans regaining full control of Congress, there will be little movement on education policy at the federal level over the next two years. Certainly one reason lies with the fact that President Barack Obama, no longer having to worry about protecting Senate Democrat incumbents, will use his executive authority to advance his efforts and will refuse to sign any legislation that doesn’t dovetail with his efforts to preserve his legacy on this front. But as I also noted, internal divisions within House and Senate Republican ranks on education and other policy issues (as well as the divide among congressional Democrats) all but assure that little in the way of sensible policymaking, especially on reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, will happen over the next two years.
A reminder of this reality came today during today’s intramural battle between House Republicans over re-electing House Speaker John Boehner to another term as their leader. The difficulty the Ohio Republican had in retaining the top job — and the likelihood of similar mutinies by more-conservative members within his caucus down the road — should rudely end any dreams of any real movement on federal education policy (especially No Child reauthorization) in the next congressional cycle. Put simply: Mike Petrilli should put away those colorful charts on reauthorizing No Child and grab some popcorn instead.
One would think that the affable Boehner, who came to Capitol Hill 20 years ago as a member of the Republican freshmen class that helped the party gain control of both the Senate and House for the first time since the early days of the Eisenhower presidency, would have an easy time winning another term as speaker. After all, he just presided over a successful midterm election campaign that included the pickup of 13 seats formerly held by Democrats as well as helping Republicans gain the largest majority it has had in 86 years. But you would be wrong. After a month of discontent among House Republicans that included the revelation that Majority Whip Steve Scalise had given a speech before an outfit founded by notorious Klu Klux Klansman-turned-politico David Duke, Boehner won re-election with just 216 votes from fellow Republicans (or 31 less than the total number of Republicans in the federal lower house). Put simply, Boehner kept his job by less than a constitutional majority.
Why the lack of thanks of an ungrateful caucus? More-conservative Republicans, angered by Boehner’s unwillingness to shut down the federal government’s discretionary operations, annoyed by his unwillingness to support their opposition to any kind of immigration reform, and dismayed by his successful move last month to pass a continuing budget resolution features such apostasies as financing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for two months (and thus, allowing the Obama Administration to enact the executive order on immigration they hate so deeply), decided to vote for anyone but him.
But the disenchantment extends beyond the recent months. Among more-conservative Republicans and their amen corners in media outlets such as National Review and think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, Boehner’s Reaganesque brand of conservatism (one which favors expansive immigration), his record on such matters as education policy (especially having served as a coauthor of No Child), and his desire to actually engage in that thing called governing a nation makes him a virtual traitor to movement conservatism. Or so they think. The fact that Boehner attempted last year to rally support for an immigration reform plan that would have likely been similar to one offered up by the Gang of Eight in the Senate led by Florida Republican (and likely presidential candidate) Marco Rubio, also irked them. And let’s not forget that Boehner, along with other congressional leaders, is associated with the Bush-era policies (including No Child) that these new-styled conservatives want to cast aside.
Luckily for Boehner, he didn’t need a majority of either Republican or Democrat votes to win another term as speaker. But today’s antics already prove lie to speculation among some political observers within and outside of education policy circles that more-conservative players among congressional Republicans in both houses will pass any legislation that Boehner or his Senate colleague, Mitch McConnell, offer up. If anything, full Republican control of Congress actually empowers more-conservative players such as Ted Cruz because they can count on a larger faction of fellow-travelers (as well as those playing to the less-sensible among conservative activists within the party) to stop passage of any measure that displeases them. The fact that Republicans won full control of Congress 13 months after Cruz and his colleagues helped shut down federal discretionary operations to the annoyance of the public at the time has actually shown them that they can get away with anything because voters have short memories of bad acts.
For Boehner, in particular, this dissension is particularly problematic because the House Speakership is probably in its weakest state since 1811, just before the legendary Henry Clay transformed what was then a figurehead job into a seat of political control over every aspect of legislating. The move five years ago by House Democrats and Republicans three years ago to end the practice of earmarks, or allowing congressmen to shower subsidies upon favored constituents, means that Boehner lacks a key tool for forcing factions opposed to his key goals to either compromise or go along. Further complicating matters: House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who can easily exploit congressional Republican divisions by refusing to offer Boehner any support from her caucus. Given that Democrats are now in the minority, and that her own long-term survival depends on waging a war of obstruction, she has little reason to offer Boehner support in those sticky situations when his more-conservative dissenters refuse to vote for his plans.
Given that policymaking and ultimately, governing always involve some level of meeting in the middle, Boehner’s lack of power means that little in the way of legislating (save for matters involving those budgetary matters congressmen know are key to their relationships with constituents and iron triangles) will be happening under the dome.
Last year’s debacle over immigration reform has already shown that little in the way of comprehensive action will be happening on that front. Same is also likely true on federal education policymaking. House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (along with Senate counterpart Lamar Alexander) aim to eviscerate No Child and its accountability provisions. But he must contend with more-conservative members off the committee who have no interest in taking any action that looks like they are teaming up with the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers; passing a No Child reauthorization that eviscerates annual testing (as Alexander suggests he would support) won’t go down well with movement conservative activists on the ground. Kline must also deal with the few remaining Republicans on and off the committee who realize that No Child’s measures have spurred the kinds of systemic reforms children need for lifelong success. The presence of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a strong reformer who has embraced No Child (and his brother’s legacy on education policy), in the race for the Republican presidential nomination is also a factor.
The fact that Kline essentially wants to go back to the old days of the federal government doling out subsidies without holding states accountable (an affront to movement conservatives of any intellectual honesty), and is pushing for increases in federal special ed dollars in order to help out the traditional districts in his Minnesota community, also doesn’t sit well with those in his caucus who want to reduce federal spending altogether. Add in the anger among Republicans with American Indian and Alaska Native communities in their districts over Kline’s effort two years ago to end funding for Native education programs, along with Boehner’s own desire to preserve his legacy on education policy, and Kline could end up finding himself having a harder time passing his proposal out of the House than he did two years ago.
More than likely, what will come out of both houses will be legislation to expand charter schools, funding for D.C.’s school voucher program (a perennial battle of wills between congressional Republicans and an Obama Administration always trying to shut it down), and a bill governing federal education research that almost passed out of Congress last year. Beyond that, promises by Kline and Alexander to pass a reauthorized version of No Child by Valentine’s Day is hogwash. Even a proposal makes it out of both houses, it will be vetoed by Obama, who knows that Republicans don’t have the two-thirds of votes needed to overturn his action.
So reformers looking forward to congressional action of any kind on education policy should keeping looking. Particularly for conservatives in the school reform movement, the revolt against Boehner should serve as a rude awakening.