Replies

Interesting, but not surprising. Congress wasn't a full time job in the early days. Transportation and communication were difficult. No Speaker was needed when out of session so they didn't refill the position until at least a quorum was reassembled. However, I bet choosing a new Speaker was one of the first orders of business then. Alas, these aren't those good old days.

Having an unelected Speaker Pro Temp may keep the wheels of Congress rolling when the Speaker is temporarily unavailable through illness or absence. It should suffice to get through a noncontroversial election of a permanent Speaker. But as a medium to long term solution, while Congress is working through controversial matters, I can't see a Speaker Pro Temp, elected by no one but his own constituents and selected by someone no longer even in Congress, having success herding these egotistical cats. "Who elected YOU to tell me what I can and can't do?" would become a common refrain. RINOs, and moderates in general, appear to like order. They react poorly to pressure from either flank. The left realizes and uses this all the time to great success. We may hope the right is finally learning it. If the RINOs think they can get by with Pro Temp solutions and maintain long term order they are in for unpleasant surprises. A genuinely elected, by a majority of the House, outsider would hold more authority over them. A Speaker from within, acceptable to a majority of both the whole House and the nominally majority party is clearly preferable. But when the majority 'party' is functionally two different parties it may not be possible.