As I reflected on the kerfuffle over picking a new Speaker of the House, I thought that Republicans ought to think long and hard about precisely why they wanted a House majority in the first place. As it turned out the editors of the Wall Street Journal had similar thoughts:
The problem any GOP leader faces today is that too many Republicans don’t really want to hold and keep political power. They’re much more comfortable in opposition in the minority, which is easier because no hard decisions or compromises are necessary. You can rage against “the swamp†without having to do anything to change it. This is the fundamental and sorry truth behind the Speaker spectacle and the performative GOP politics of recent years.
It’s sorrier still because the country desperately needs an effective check on the excesses of the progressive left that dominates today’s Democratic Party. That’s what voters said when they gave Republicans the House majority, which they seem intent on squandering.
Also of interest is their characterization of the last two Republican House Speakers:
It’s true the Speaker is third in line to be President, you get your name in the history books and your portrait hung in the Capitol, and you can sit and applaud uncomfortably behind President Biden during his next two State of the Union addresses. Other than that, there’s not much to recommend the job.
That was true for John Boehner, who became Speaker in 2011 but was ousted in 2015 by a rump GOP faction after he failed to show enough enthusiasm for futile political gestures. Paul Ryan took over and was able to push through the 2017 tax reform, among other things, but he left after 2018 rather than have to deal with the growing Crank Caucus.
I believe that Republicans and Americans more generally should reflect on just what would happen if Republicans’ “crank caucus” were to gain as outsized a role in policymaking as the Democrats’ equal and opposite “crank caucus” has had for the last two years. I see no evidence that it would result in greater fiscal prudence or effective and limited government. Why should we want that?
I wonder if dissenters have figured out what they want to get to “yes”.
Because if McCarthy bows out, I can’t imagine whoever replaces him would tolerate the dissenters as much. And that could matter in what committees they get, how much funding they get from the national committee in reelection campaigns.
I doubt it. If what they want is “anybody but McCarthy” they aren’t going about it very well since every alternative put forward has face-planted.
That I think is the difficulty for the dissenters.
Who wants McCarthy’s job if he has to deal with members who can’t get to yes.
On what legislation did the far left have undue influence under Biden so far? The infrastructure bill got 69 votes in the Senate so hard to see it as far left dominated. The recent spending bill had IIRC, a 5% in crease in non-defense discretionary spending (less than inflation?) and 8% in defense spending. Looking at the claimed New Green Deal they didnt get very much of what they wanted.
Steve
I’m not sad to watch the place burn. Maybe Congress and/or the GoP will hit rock bottom and finally start to unfuck itself.
And Democrats will be here soon. The GoP is the vanguard in turning a political party into a husk and a joke, but the Democrats are following the same trendlines. Democrats are laughing now just like they used to laugh at the GoP when right-wing ideologues started primarying moderate incumbents.