Opinion: To a still speaker-less House, why not Trump, after all?

When former President Donald Trump was first asked about the call from some GOP lawmakers for him to serve as the next speaker of the House of Representatives, his response was surprising.

“All I can say is we’ll do whatever is best for the country and for the Republican Party,” Trump said.

He added, of course, that he’s “totally” focused on his third bid for the White House and later endorsed Rep. Jim Jordan, whose bid for the post has now failed after three votes, putting Trump back into the conversation again.

So what is best for the country? And for the Republican Party?

Here’s what seems best for the country: Poll after poll after poll says the majority of Americans don’t want a 2024 rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden. With Biden and Trump as the front-runners for their parties’ nominations, one way for Trump to serve the interests of the majority of the country would be to remove himself from consideration by becoming House speaker — and not just temporarily, as he has suggested. (He could also decline to seek any kind of elected office, but let’s not stray too far into fantasyland.)

And what’s best for the Republican Party? Obviously, nominating a candidate who can beat Biden next fall. Trump has struggled to perform well against Biden in general election polling matchups. In fact, according to some recent polling, the only Republican candidate who does beat Biden decisively is former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley — who, coincidentally, has just leapfrogged Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as the top Trump alternative in early-state GOP contests.

Clearly, the best way for Trump to do “whatever is best” for the country and his party is to suspend his campaign and throw his weight behind someone like Haley (a move he could frame as a natural continuation of his administration, since she served as his United Nations ambassador). But why become House speaker?

Related

• Jim Jordan, Steve Scalise ... Donald Trump? The House speaker race just got more interesting

• Opinion: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene really, really wants Trump to be House speaker

Let’s get the more cynical reasons out of the way. I’ve written before about my distaste for Trump. I believe the former president craves power and attention, and the speaker of the House is one of the most powerful and influential jobs in the U.S. government. The post would grant Trump a position that is both king and kingmaker, especially over a conference already more aligned with his MAGA movement than the Senate.

Additionally, it’s possible that at least one of the reasons Trump is running for president is to keep himself out of prison. If he’s convicted of any of the counts of criminal conduct he faces, he’ll want someone in the White House who’s friendly to the idea of a pardon. Right now, he’s betting on himself, but a wobbly dead-heat rematch might not be as sound as, say, a Haley nomination, at least according to those polls. As House speaker, Trump could whip the political clout of an entire conference behind the candidate most likely to beat Biden (in exchange for assurance of pardon, presumably).

But let’s also give credit where credit is due. I begrudgingly admit that Trump’s political strengths could suit him well for this role.

He is a prolific fundraiser, an obvious asset to one of the key players in defending vulnerable incumbents and boosting competitive candidates in election years. As a former president, his fundraising network would be larger and better-resourced than any other speaker in history.

He’s an effective grassroots organizer, almost entirely reshaping the Republican electorate in just four odd years. Such sway would come in handy when whipping votes and keeping his conference in line.

And he has a long, sharp memory — useful, if channeled constructively, for familiarizing himself with the ins and outs of a conference more than 200 members strong.

Even the historic nature of his speakership — he would be the first House speaker to not be a sitting member of the body — would be advantageous. He would have no responsibilities to a particular district’s constituency, freeing up his staff’s time and energy for the administrative and leadership tasks a speaker is usually consumed by anyway.

Some have opined that current party rules bar anyone under indictment from serving as speaker. But as the nation observed in January as a condition for now-ousted Speaker Kevin McCarthy to claim the gavel, rules can simply be changed at the flip of a switch.

Which is why I feel relatively at ease with someone like Trump holding the gavel: if he were to misbehave, it would now be so easy to depose him.

As demonstrated this month, it takes only one member to bring forward a motion to vacate the speakership. Even if that threshold were to change to three members, or five, the blockade of opposition to Jordan this week has shown plenty of political will among centrist Republicans, enough to force a vote if Speaker Trump were to seriously step out of line. The American public wouldn’t have to wait around for the next presidential election, or for yet another doomed-to-fail impeachment.

The political consequences of his antics would be immediate, not stockpiled until the next election. The bull might finally be tamed.

To centrist House skeptics: Why not give it a try? If it’s not working out, you can dispatch him quicker than a reality TV star can say, “You’re fired!”

There’s merit to the idea of Trump turning the page on his presidential ambitions to become potentially the most consequential and politically effective House speaker in U.S. history. It’s unlikely, but if he can hang on to the post, he may even have a shot at redeeming, in part, his tarnished political legacy.

The only question is whether Trump could stomach sitting behind Biden during next year’s State of the Union address.

Brian Ericson is a political writer based in Salt Lake City.