Opinion: Why not Trump after all, to a House still without a speaker?

 Opinion: Why not Trump after all, to a House still without a speaker?

It makes sense for Trump to abandon his bid for the presidency in favor of becoming the most significant House speaker in American history.

Former President Donald Trump's reaction was unexpected when he was first questioned about the request from certain GOP legislators for him to serve as the next speaker of the House of Representatives.

All I can say, according to Trump, is that we'll act in the nation's and the Republican Party's best interests.

Then, after endorsing Rep. Jim Jordan, whose campaign for the position has already failed after three votes, bringing Trump back into the discussion, he added that he is "totally" focused on his third run for the White House.

What therefore is best for the nation? for the Republican Party as well?

What appears best for the nation is as follows: The majority of Americans, according to survey after poll, do not want a rematch between Presidents Trump and Joe Biden in 2024. One way for Trump to represent the interests of the majority of the population would be to remove himself from discussion by becoming House speaker — and not only temporarily, as he has proposed. Biden and Trump are the front-runners for their parties' nominations. (He may also choose not to run for any political position, but let's keep our fantasies in check.)

What benefits the Republican Party the most? Obviously, choose a nominee who is capable of defeating Biden in the fall. When compared against Biden in polling comparisons for the general election, Trump has had trouble doing well. In fact, current polling indicates that the only Republican contender to defeat Biden handily is former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, who has just surpassed Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as the leading alternative to Trump in early-state GOP primaries.

The easiest way for Trump to do "whatever is best" for the nation and his party is to put a stop to his campaign and support someone like Haley (a move he could justify as a logical continuation of his administration, given that she previously served as his UN ambassador). However, why run for House Speaker?

Let's start with the cynical justifications. I've already written about how I don't like Trump. The speaker of the House is one of the most powerful and significant positions in the American government, and I think the former president seeks both authority and recognition. With control over a conference that is already more in line with his MAGA movement than the Senate, the position would give Trump the power to be both king and kingmaker.

Trump may be seeking the presidency to avoid going to jail, which is another reason he may be doing so. He needs a president who supports the concept of a pardon if he is found guilty on any of the criminal charges he is facing. He's banking on himself right now, but based on those surveys, a shaky dead-heat rematch would not be as sound as, say, a Haley nomination. In return for a guarantee of pardon, Trump could use his position as House speaker to rally the support of the whole conference behind the candidate who is most likely to defeat Biden.

Give credit where credit is due, however. I must reluctantly concede that Trump would be a good fit for this position given his political prowess.

He is an apparent value to one of the primary actors in supporting strong candidates and protecting weak incumbents during election years since he is a prolific fundraiser. His fundraising network would be bigger and more well-equipped than any other speaker in history since he was a former president.

He successfully organized the Republican electorate at the grassroots level in about four or five years. Such influence would be useful for influencing votes and controlling his conference.

Additionally, he has a long, keen memory that may be put to good use by learning the ins and outs of a conference with more than 200 participants.

Even his speakership's historical significance—he would be the first speaker of the House who was not a sitting member of the body—would be helpful. He wouldn't be accountable to any constituents in a specific district, freeing up his staff's time and effort for the managerial and leadership duties a speaker is typically occupied with.

Some have claimed that present party regulations prevent anybody who is charged from becoming speaker. But as the country learned in January when Speaker Kevin McCarthy was required to resign before he could take the gavel, the rules may easily be modified with the flick of a switch.

Because it would be so simple to remove Trump from office if he misbehaved, I feel somewhat at comfortable with him wielding the gavel.

This month's proceedings served as a reminder that all it takes is one member to propose a motion to remove the speaker. The blockage of opposition to Jordan this week has shown enough of political will among moderate Republicans, enough to compel a vote if Speaker Trump were to severely stray from the party line, even if that threshold were to shift to three members or five. The American people wouldn't have to wait for the next presidential election or another futile impeachment attempt.

His misbehavior would have direct political repercussions rather than waiting until after the next election. The bull may have been subdued at last.

To the moderate House doubters: Why not give it a shot? You can get rid of him if it doesn't work out faster than a reality TV star can shout, "You're fired!"

It makes sense for Trump to abandon his bid for the presidency in favor of becoming the most important and successful House speaker in American history. It's improbable, but if he can keep the job, he could even have a chance to somewhat restore his damaged political reputation.

The only uncertainty is whether Trump would be able to endure sitting behind Biden for the State of the Union speech the following year.