It’s certainly an amusing idea.
I’d only caution you, we Brits have a tradition whereby the Speaker has to effectively renounce their political affiliations and be wholly independent of either governing party or Opposition.
Trump could do that, but look up John Bercow. He was the only British Speaker in my lifetime who was obviously an activist and not “independent”. And he was a complete disaster, because (our) Speaker role does require a level of fairmindedness and the minute the Speaker is perceived to be batting for one side against another, he/she loses credibility.
Of course I know the USA is different, but the Founding Fathers most likely intended the Speaker to be an impartial figure, and Muhlenberg epitomised that. Muhlenberg, a German, abstained from vote on treating German like an official language of the USA.
While his sympathies were possibly in favor of the motion (not all German born Americans could read English), he said after the vote, “the faster the Germans become Americans, the better it will be.”
If Trump can be THAT kind of speaker, then I’m all for it.
If all he does is use the office to skew every debate, I don’t see that as being much of an improvement over the activist Speakership of Pelosi.
Yes, different in the US. Speaker is usually partisan not necessarily just a debate moderator.
The speaker sets the “agenda”, which ultimately means that bills from the opposing party may never make it to the floor for a vote. Compromise can only occur among opposing parties if the appropriate leadership makes nice with the speaker.
One of the reasons Reagan did a lot is because he made nice w/Tip O’Neill.