COMMENTARY: A steady hand on the tiller

Earlier this month, Kevin McCarthy became the first Speaker of the House to be removed from that lofty perch when a handful of rebels within his Republican Party (and, yes, 212 Democrats) kicked him to the curb.

McCarthy must never have read Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

He still could, of course. And if he wanted some more insight into how things might have been different, he could throw in “Tom Foley: The Man in the Middle,” a new book co-written by University of Idaho professor Kenton Bird.

“The Man in the Middle,” released this fall by University Press of Kansas, is a political biography of the late Washington Democrat who used consensus building and collegiality to carve out a long, respected career in the House of Representatives from the state’s 5th District.

That career peaked with his somewhat untidy ascension to speaker in 1989, and then suddenly, shockingly crumbled in 1994 when he lost a reelection bid for the first time in 28 years. When Foley died in 2013, he was widely hailed as a man of integrity and a thoughtful public servant.

Bird and co-author John Pierce, a University of Kansas professor, spent six years gathering information and conducting interviews for the book. It’s an academic look at how Foley, a principled moderate, used a bipartisan approach to governing to get things done, both in Washington, D.C., and back home in conservative eastern Washington.

Foley was elected speaker in 1989 amid a burgeoning polarization in politics. From the start, he had to grapple with an increasingly partisan divide stoked by Newt Gingrich, the pugnacious Georgia Republican whose “Contract With America” ran counter to Foley’s give-and-take philosophy.

The book charts a political career that navigated some of the most tumultuous times in American history, from the civil rights era through Vietnam, Watergate and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Bird, a former journalist in this region, answered questions about his book via email:

Brian Beesley: What did you learn from researching and writing the book?

Kenton Bird: John and I wanted to place Foley in historical and political context, which wasn’t possible 20 years earlier because the events were still recent, and the sting of Foley’s defeat was still fresh. Our goal was to provide a better understanding of how he won 15 elections from a moderately conservative district — and lost one. Early in our conversations, we decided to explain how Foley was able to work within his own party, as well as with Republicans in Congress and in the White House. We proposed the working title, “The Man in the Middle,” which our editor at the Press liked.


BB: Talk more about Foley’s qualities as a leader. What do you mean by “in the middle”?

KB: One, Foley was the last of a long line of Democratic speakers who dated back to the 1950s. He learned early how to navigate policy differences in the often-fractious House Democratic Caucus. One of the best magazine profiles of Foley, in 1989, was aptly titled “The Navigator.” Second, he balanced his commitment to the 5th District of Washington with his responsibilities as a party national leader. He was a transactional leader in the sense that he found ways to support programs that benefited his constituents. Third, he found ways to bring leaders of both parties together for legislation in the national interest.


BB: Did you learn anything about Foley that surprised you?

KB: When I wrote my dissertation in the late 1990s, nearly everyone I interviewed was eager to praise Foley — even Republicans. I expected that response then because he still wielded a great deal of power and influence. Twenty-five years after he left Congress, and nearly 10 years after his death, the same was true. The people Tom Foley worked with genuinely respected and admired him. It was almost impossible to find any critics.


BB: Would Foley’s brand of collegial, bipartisan politics work in today’s Congress? Would he even get elected as a Democrat in the 5th District these days?

KB: On the one hand, I think the American public would like to see members of Congress work together to address issues such as climate change, immigration and the economy. We’ve seen this is possible in the Senate. There’s a small group in the House, the Bipartisan Working Group, with two dozen members, equally divided among Democrats and Republicans. But since January of this year, a small group of extremist Republicans has been able to keep the entire House of Representatives from functioning as it should. They can’t agree among themselves about who should be the next speaker. I don’t see any scenario where that faction would be willing to work with the Democrats unless there are changes in the House rules (such as those recently proposed by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader).

Someone like Foley probably could not be elected in the 5th District’s current configuration. The electorate has changed considerably since 1994, in part due to people moving to places with like-minded voters. That’s why coastal districts are more likely to vote Democratic and inland, rural districts more likely to vote Republican. In addition, the district is less dependent on farming, ranching and logging, the interests Foley so effectively represented. It’s possible that a moderate Democrat will stand a chance of being elected when the incumbent, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, retires, but the stars will have to align.


BB: Foley seemed to dedicate his life to politics. After he lost to George Nethercutt in 1994, he downplayed his defeat, but how devastating was the result to him personally?

KB: It’s astonishing today to read how gracious Foley was on election night in 1994. He began his concession speech by thanking his constituents for sending him to Washington, D.C., for 15 terms. Privately, I’m sure he wondered what he could have done differently in that last campaign; he lost by less than 4,000 votes out of more than 200,000 votes cast. A few dozen votes in each precinct could have closed the gap.

Publicly, though, he never second-guessed his campaign strategy or the voters’ judgment. And two years after leaving Congress, President Bill Clinton appointed him to be U.S. ambassador to Japan, a position he held with dignity for nearly four years.


BB: Discuss your book in the context of what’s going on in Congress today.

KB: The chapter that analyzes the 1994 election discusses the way Newt Gingrich and other Republicans sought to make the 1994 midterm election a referendum on Bill Clinton’s presidency. He sought to portray Congress as a corrupt institution, as part of his plan for a Republican takeover — a strategy that succeeded.

One biography of Gingrich is titled “Burning Down the House,” a philosophy that the Republican hardliners in the House have taken to heart. The seeds of the dysfunctional House of Representatives today were sown in Gingrich’s “Contract with America,” in 1994, aided and abetted by right-wing talk radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh.

Beesley is a former editor for the Lewiston Tribune. He can be contacted at tribbeez@gmail.com.