The potential outcomes of tomorrow’s struggle over the seat of the Speaker of the US House of Representatives are numerous, and many pundits are enumerating and commenting on them. Here’s Steve Benen:
Aside from the palace intrigue, why should folks care about this?
Because the public needs a functioning House — and ideally, a majority party capable of governing. If the GOP struggles to elect a speaker, it would represent a new level of Republican chaos.
Brendan Buck, a consultant who previously worked for Republican Speakers Paul Ryan and John Boehner, wrote in The New York Times today, “If Republicans are unable to muster the votes for a speaker, it will make very clear from the outset they cannot be counted on to fulfill the body’s basic responsibilities.”
Let’s say McCarthy comes up short tomorrow. Then what?
That would be the first ballot, making a second ballot necessary. If no one secures a majority on the second ballot, either, then there’d be a third, and so on.
McCarthy has said he intends to keep trying, as long as it takes, but no one can say with confidence how long his own allies will remain behind him. It seems likely that at some point, if McCarthy’s GOP opponents won’t budge, rank-and-file Republicans will start taking alternative solutions more seriously.
It sounds like serious chaos. Elsewhere, Benen notes that the core of the McCarthy opposition wants a single Rep “motion to vacate” capability, i.e. no confidence vote, and McCarthy has offered a compromise of a five Rep requirement. Given the GOP repugnance of compromise, it seems unlikely to be accepted.
And it raises the question of how often it would exercised, too. Interestingly, National Review does not seem to be addressing the potential chaos at the moment, so on to Erick Erickson:
Congress will convene this week and in so convening, I must remind everyone again that here in 2023 there still is no good reason to put Kevin McCarthy in the Speaker’s chair. The response has been, “Who is the alternative?” Well, there are at least 218 better choices. Note that this number means I’m excluding people like George Santos and Marjorie Taylor Greene. From Jim Jordan to Steve Scalise to Jim Banks to Chip Roy to literally just about any other Republican, there are better options than McCarthy.
For those who say, “Well, they’re all supporting McCarthy,” I would respond by saying that’s for the first vote.
What I suspect will happen is that McCarthy will rely on Democrats to get the votes, which is actually appropriate and fitting. An opportunist with no principles relying on Democrats, not conservatives, to win the Speaker’s chair highlights McCarthy’s opportunism.
Given Erickson’s long history of being wrong, on the side of extremism, and his suggestion that Rep Jordan (R-OH), a flaming lunatic, is substantially better than McCarthy, I’m not thinking he’s right. I cannot see why Democrats would vote for McCarthy, given that this is an opportunity to show American independents that portions of the Republicans, such as Jordan, Rep Biggs (R-AZ), etc, are really just power-mad nutcases.
They’re so bad that they bring dishonor and infamy down on their districts, in case the point isn’t clear.
But let’s step back and ask who all this crap benefits. Got your guess in place? If it’s not one of our national adversaries, such as Putin or Xi, then you’re not thinking big enough. For those who love decisive, strong decision-makers, regardless of wisdom, of consensus, of humility, they’ll believe this chaos illustrates the foolishness of democracy.
To my mind, though, it illustrates the foolishness of humanity, especially if tomorrow is a maelstrom of madness, of moral pygmies chasing after power.
I would not be surprised if, twenty or thirty years from now, forensic financial experts discover efforts by the aforementioned national adversaries to influence some of those opposing McCarthy today. Not that there’s much to admire in McCarthy, mind you, but paralyzing the armory of democracy requires chaos and not a smooth transfer of power.
