House of Representatives nonsense

[hudebnik]

As of this writing, Kevin McCarthy has given lots of concessions to the twenty looniest members of his party in hopes of getting their votes for Speaker. But they haven't actually voted for him: he's lost six consecutive ballots, and actually has fewer supporters now than before he started. (And it's amusing to watch Marjorie Taylor-Greene trying to look like "the voice of sanity".) This morning's Times says he's offering the loonies even more concessions, but it's still not clear that they'll vote for him: caving to Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin never persuaded them to play nice, it only persuaded the world that you were a weakling. As this commentary pointed out yesterday, "McCarthy’s Republican opponents are right in surmising that he believes in nothing and will yield under pressure; the evidence is his inability to stand up to them. His mistake was convincing himself that a party obsessed with dominance would reward submission." The very existence of this mess demonstrates that McCarthy, if by some miracle he became Speaker, would be incompetent at the essential skills of vote-counting and arm-twisting, at which Nancy Pelosi so excelled.

Meanwhile at the State level, similar problems are being solved: in the closely-split Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Republicans nominated and supported a moderate Democrat who promised to "lead as an independent" and "not caucus with either party" as Speaker of the House. And in the Ohio House of Representatives, minority Democrats nominated and supported a moderate Republican as Speaker in order to fend off the candidacy of a more-extreme Republican.

The same thing could happen in Washington, DC. Robert Reich suggests that Democrats nominate and support sane Republican David Joyce, while this Times commentary suggests that they nominate and support a sane Republican from outside the House, such as John Kasich, Fred Upton, or Larry Hogan. (No, nothing in either the Constitution or House rules says the Speaker of the House must be a member of the House.) And while I was writing this, Robert Reich added an update, again suggesting that all Democrats and the remaining sane Republicans support a sane Republican. In either case, this would have three beneficial effects:

• it would end the embarrassing circus;


• it would teach the loonies a lesson (by blocking somebody who wasn't quite loony enough for them, they got somebody even less loony); and


• it would give the country a Speaker of the House committed to working across party lines to get things done, as is only appropriate in such a closely-divided house. (RIP, Hastert Rule!)

It's not clear that Kevin McCarthy, or his second-in-command Steve Scalise, can ever give enough hostages to satisfy the loonies and get elected Speaker himself; indeed, non-loony Republicans in the House are presumably losing respect for him by the hour. It is clear that the Federal Republican Party has nominated and elected a bunch of bomb-throwers who were more interested in getting elected than in governing, more interested in their own individual fame, follower count, and sense of consequence than in actually passing laws. And while Democrats in the House are enjoying the spectacle, they could be more useful to their country by approaching sane Republicans (which shouldn't take long -- there aren't many) about moving forward.

Comments

[metahacker]

Can we just withhold their salaries until they are actually working? I feel like this would solve things quickly.

Or not. One group is intent on the destruction of the USA, from inside preferably, and morass serves their goals.

[hudebnik]

That only affects Representatives who aren't independently wealthy. Which disproportionately means the ones who want government to function.

[cellio]

I've been wondering why most of the Democrats (assume they too have extremists who won't play) haven't gotten together with enough sane Republicans to do, in DC, what PA and OH did at the state level. I understand the appeal of sitting back and watching the Reps burn, but if they aren't pursuing this, they're missing an opportunity to get someone who would probably actually work together with people.

[hudebnik]

Exactly.

It could be that they've been trying, but every Republican they've approached has seen "getting elected Speaker with Democratic support" as career suicide: you get elected Speaker, do that job for two years, then lose your next primary and are out on the street. Which is a realistic fear if you come from a deep-red district... but I assume most of the pro-democracy Republicans don't. I would think an incumbent Speaker running for re-election in a purple district could draw a significant number of independent votes. So it matters whether the state in question has closed primaries and/or "sore loser" laws that prevent you from running in the general election if you lose your primary.