The man who would be speaker.

• Author: Waldman, Steven
• Position: Jim Wright

THE MAN WHO WOULD BE SPEAKER

February 1981. Early drafts of President Reagan's first budget plan, which included deep cuts in many of the most worthwhile domestic programs, were making the rounds on Capitol Hill. School lunches, tuition aid for the poor, and Medicaid--programs that represent the core Democratic notion that government should lend a helping hand to those who need it--all were slated for huge reductions.

In the House of Representatives, suddenly the only body the Democrats controlled, a stunned Democratic leadership tried to formulate a strategy to protect the programs it most valued. Finally, they drew the first line of battle: Programs for the neediest? Programs that worked the best? Education programs? No--the Synthetic Fuels Corporation. A letter to the White House from House Majority Leader Jim Wright of Texas and 30 other Democrats begged the administration to spare Synfuels's $5 billion in federal subsidies and loan guarantees. The program, which paid corporations to produce fuel at $60 to $90 per barrel (the present cost of oil is $17 per barrel) through processes that actually consumed more energy than they produced, is today being phased out as one of the few programs that both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, could agree was a waste of money.

"Does that sound weird?' asks a former aide to a member of the House leadership. "Damn right it's weird. It's Jim Wright.'

The person who decided the Democrats should man the barricades for Synfuels will probably become Speaker of the House of Representatives in 1986, replacing the retiring Tip O'Neill. Perhaps that doesn't seem extraordinary. Wright has been in Congress for 32 years, majority leader for the past nine. His ascent to the speakership seems as inevitable as Prince Charles's to the throne. But before Democrats allow the majority leader to move into the speaker's chair, they should consider that this may be the most important leadership race in many years--so they might want to think seriously about how they choose their speaker.

Leading the monkeys

If you were to stop 100 Americans on the street and ask them who the leader of the loyal opposition was when Richard Nixon was president, they might answer Edmund Muskie, or J. William Fulbright, or maybe Dan Rather. Few would mention John McCormack or Carl Albert, the two speakers of the House during Nixon's administration. But if you asked them who leads the Democrats under Ronald Reagan, a vivid image would lumber into their minds: that spherical Irishman with the mop of white hair, Tip O'Neill.

It would be a vivid image not simply because this speaker has a distinctive form but because Americans have seen and read about O'Neill frequently. He denounced the president's budget cuts, warned about Social Security reductions, and fought against the big tax cut. He has been, in many people's minds, the Democratic party incarnate, an image that Republican strategists tried to exploit on all possible occasions. What better person to symbolize the party of taxers and spenders than an old-time pol who protests against budget and tax cuts?

O'Neill became speaker the same way most have, by being a loyal soldier, a good friend, helping colleagues when he could, placing his foot on the leadership ladder and slowly climbing up. Little thought was given to whether he would be a good symbol for the Democrats or even a good national Democratic leader. He was to be the man who tamed the monkeys, who made the hearings run on time, who tried to make that Rube Goldberg contraption called the House function as a legislative body.

But in 1980, the Democratic party lost control of the Senate and the White House, leaving the House of Representatives an island of Democratic control. The speaker was no longer the leader of an institution. He became the leader of the Democratic party. His statements were the Democrats' statements; his actions helped shape the Democrats' legislative agenda and television image.

Six years later the Democrats still control only the House. How the House tackles tax reform, trade, and Gramm-Rudman could change Americans' perceptions of the party. In a best-case scenario the Democrats might win back both the Senate in November and the White House in 1988. In that case, the speaker's legislative ability and priorities can help make or break a president. In the worst case scenario, the House will be the haven for the Democrats in Washington for the next two to six years. What happens in the House during this pivotal time, when allegiances are shifting and parties may be realigning, will be crucial in molding public opinion about the party and guiding its direction.

With each year of the Reagan presidency, more and more people have come to call themselves Republicans. In 1985, according to the Gallup poll, 33 percent considered themselves Republicans and 38 percent Democrats, compared to 24 percent who called themselves Republicans and 46 percent Democrats in 1980. The Democrats have won the presidency only once since 1964. Ultimately, the Democratic presidential nominee in 1988 will have the greatest responsibility to set the tone for the party. But the speaker of the House will be more than a legislative tactician and taskmaster. He will help determine whether the Democrats are seen as the party that busts budgets or balances them equitably, merely raises taxes or makes them more just, favors guns...