At, appropriately, Bloomberg Michael Bloomberg observes that House Democrats are to blame as well as what’s referred to as the “Chaos Caucus”, the eight Republicans who voted to oust House Speaker Kevin McCarthy:
Kevin McCarthy’s ejection from his seat as speaker of the US House of Representatives — an ignominy that hadn’t been attempted in more than a century — is a national embarrassment that deepens the Republican Party’s descent into dysfunction and extremism. But the fact is: The blame rests not just with the eight Republicans who voted to oust him, but also with both parties’ leaders — McCarthy and Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — for failing to reach across the aisle to save the country from this mess.
Over the past several election cycles, I have strongly supported Democratic efforts to win the House, largely to save the country from the dysfunction and craziness of a party that has fallen captive to its extreme right wing. I disagree with McCarthy on virtually every issue, but in some critical moments this year, he showed that he was willing to stand up to his party’s right-wing extremists and take the heat.
Jeffries should’ve been willing to take the same risk, by rising above partisanship to save McCarthy’s job — if not for the good of the country, then for the good of the Democratic Party.
The numbers make that clear. Eight Republicans voted to remove McCarthy from the Speakership and 200 Democrats voted for it.
That wasn’t their only alternative. Minority Leader Jeffries might have negotiated a deal with Speaker McCarthy and allowed Democrats to vote against removing McCarthy. Democrats might have voted “Present”. There are other alternatives.
The eight Republicans who voted to remove McCarthy are objectively anti-government. Now, apparently, so are Democrats.
Exactly, this is something Pelosi understood and committed to non-interference with majority party organization (i.e. vote present). Are we to believe that she was unavailable to impart her wisdom? I think the Democratic leadership is itself in danger of losing hold on their caucus, again under the same pressures of slender majorities.
Here is Pelosi on the importance of protecting the Republican speakership:
“Boehner was never going to lose the speakership. In another internal memo—this one digital-time-stamped September 16, 2015, and titled “Save the Institutionâ€â€”Sommers explained to Boehner that his survival would be ensured if Pelosi had Democratic members vote “present†when the motion came up. If they did, Boehner could win with a simple majority of Republican votes cast—which was never in doubt, as the number of GOP defectors was between 20 and 40. In a subsequent meeting, Boehner broached the idea with Pelosi and she agreed. “You can’t have 30 people in your caucus decide they’re going to vacate the chair,†she tells me. “He knew I had—not his back, but the institution’s back.—
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/29/john-boehner-trump-house-republican-party-retirement-profile-feature-215741/
Just another attempt to blame the Democrats for the problem the GOP created. Another pundit noted that no member of the House has ever voted for a Speaker in the other party. I didnt look back real far but it appears to be true. Note that it never actually happened. (Also that this only happens with Republicans.)
That said, Boehner was much different than McCarthy. Boehner was actually willing to compromise. He was not a Freedom Caucus or Tea Party member. The Dems knew that if they backed him they would get something in return. McCarthy has been a MAGA supporter. He makes promises to both sides and breaks them. If he wanted the support of the Dems he needed to offer them something concrete. Jeffires has no ability to move legislation through Congress but McCArthy did. If someone wanted to offer a deal it should be the guy who wanted to keep his job, and given his history it needed to be pretty concrete. He wouldn’t or couldn’t do that, probably the latter. Not supporting McCarthy is not the same as not wanting good government.
I will have to say this is just bizarre. I expect complete partisans to try to blame the Dems for a problem created by the GOP. I didnt expect to se it here. It was obvious this was going to happen when McCarthy was so desperate to be Speaker that he gave away everything he did to the radicals. So McCArthy is not only a weasel, he is also incompetent.
Steve
If we think through it, the blame for the chaos lies in the voters, for returning such a divided house.
As for responsibility for the situation; everyone who voted should take responsibility for their vote to keep McCarthy or choose the unknown.
I don’t know, if the vote is solely viewed from the lens of whether it leads to better governance or worse governance — the jury is still out. If the fear was there would be no Speaker at all and the House became rudderless, that fear seems overblown for now. If the fear is the next Speaker will be less amenable to necessary compromise, it depends on who Republicans pick.
As for whether Democrats stirring the pot of the Republican “civil war” for partisan purposes is good or bad…. I tend to think Democrats will regret it someday…. but it probably is a long ways away.
That is my view. I also think that the Democrats who voted to oust McCarthy are looking at it from a purely political/electoral prism. I’m not sure they realize they are gambling.
@steve, legislation isn’t just about votes, it’s about process. There are norms that underlie that process in order for it to work. Pelosi wasn’t making a decision about any particular Speaker, she said it was an institutional matter. A Speaker can’t do their job if they have to retain over 98% support of their own caucus. Also, McCarthy says that Pelosi told him during the Speakership conference that she would have his back if the motion to vacate came up.
@Curious, I think it was in the Democratic Party’s interest to keep the House Republicans weak, but not take out the Speaker. Perhaps there is an analogy to the practical case for not taking out a foreign leader in the midst of war, you need someone to negotiate with and now we have a government shutdown planned with no negotiations.
On a deeper level, their beef with McCarthy is real, but superficial. He can’t keep promises; he feels the need to attack the Democrats and Biden when he leaves negotiations. These are clearly caused by trying to keep Freedom Caucus support while avoiding a shutdown. The Democrats should not have helped the Freedom Caucus here. I don’t see how the next Speaker isn’t more difficult.
The minority party voting against the Speaker for the other party is completely normal and always happens. The notion that Democrats had some special obligation to act differently this time seems absurd to me. The reason this is the first occurrence of a Speaker losing what was a de facto vote of no confidence is not because the Democrats suddenly decided to do something ahistorical, it’s because the GoP Caucus is divided, and their majority is historically tiny, leaving little room and giving the Chaos Caucus the political influence they wouldn’t normally have.
And my understanding is that McCarthy might have tried to broker a deal to get Democratic help and didn’t. Without some quid-pro-quo, why should anyone expect Democrats save McCarthy, especially when no one had any idea who would replace him? Given that McCarthy also immediately said he was done with being Speaker and would not recompete for the office, it seems to me that he wanted to play the martyr here.
And let’s be real – making a deal with the “enemy” party to maintain the Speakership would have been political seppuku.
“The Democrats should not have helped the Freedom Caucus here. I don’t see how the next Speaker isn’t more difficult.”
I don’t think the GoP would act differently if the roles were reversed. And politically, I think this helps the Democrats – it makes the GoP look like it can’t govern. The news cycle is about GoP dysfunction. If there’s another shutdown, that dysfunction can be blamed with responsibility transferring to the GoP.
Democrats also have to consider the downsides of appearing to help the GoP out of its own mess.
Finally, McCarthy wasn’t very good at the job, and he was very weak.
That’s what I meant when I said I thought the Democrats were looking at it strictly from a political/electoral viewpoint.
I think I tend to look at it through a management lens. First, while Pelosi supposedly said she would have his back that was also when McCarthy said he would not let impeachment proceedings start without a whole House vote. He made other promises. He had already reneged on the deal.
Second, what happens if the Dems decide to back him anyway without any quid pro quo, besides looking stupid and angering their voters. Heaven knows the GOP would never do that without getting something in return. Anyway, what happens is you are back in the same situation next month. A GOP leader who is unable to lead his conference. The only way it works is if the Dems keep supporting him but they have to support him when he keeps bringing them GOP plans. What’s the point of being a Democrat if you need to approve any GOP plan just so McCarthy, a Republican, can remain speaker?
The best hope for the Democrats was to not support him. At a practical level it would hard to end up with someone worse. The Dems cant really stop any legislation the GOP wants to pass and maybe the new Speaker can control the radicals better. If the next one(s) cant either maybe it demonstrates (further) to the voters the inability to rule on the part of the GOP.
This goes well beyond the current problem. It goes back to the GOP encouraging the kind of extremism that got them in this position. As someone noted, the House used to legislate to provide members of its caucus protection in swing states. Now the party legislates to provide cover so that members from R +30 areas have protection in the primaries.
Steve
“That’s what I meant when I said I thought the Democrats were looking at it strictly from a political/electoral viewpoint.”
Yes, why should anyone expect anything different?
Again, if the roles were reversed here, I don’t think the GoP would do anything different.
As incoherent as they are, the parties still want to win and watch the other side lose. They will not pass up an opportunity to stand aside and watch the other party self-immolate unless there is a quid pro quo involved.
To do their jobs? For the good of the country? Because it’s the right thing to do?
Could you explain how it’s good for the country to keep a Speaker in office who cant control his own party? Specifically, keep his party from having us go into a shutdown? How would we be helped if it meant the only way to keep a Speaker in office, mind you only for the GOP, is to rubber stamp whatever legislation he gives them and then vote to support him? Not seeing it.
Steve
So, your view is that political parties should be controlled by single individuals? How does that differ from authoritarianism?
When you have only two political parties, there is no place to create a coalition government in the legislative branch. Take away the temper tantrum of extreme factions of Republicans and Democrats, the plurality of moderates left over may actually get things done. Obviously, the Republicans cannot keep a coalition within their own caucus. I believe Democrats have challenges of their own. Unless each party deals with their own internal dysfunction, neither party should govern Congress.