Rise of the Moderates?
I think I was wrong.
Earlier this week, I predicted that Kevin McCarthy would become Speaker of the House because there seemed to be no one else who could muster the necessary votes. Well, six ballots later (at last count), it now seems that McCarthy can’t muster enough votes either.
That brings us to the problem of a viable alternative. Rep. Hakim Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has been the consistent runner-up in the voting with the 212 votes of the incoming House Democrats. But Jeffries, the new leader of House Democrats, isn’t going to get any Republican votes to put him over the top.
On the Republican side, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Steve Scalise (R-La.) have been mentioned as possible alternatives to McCarthy, but neither was on the most recent ballot. Instead, the 20 rogue Republicans nominated Byron Donalds (R-Fla.)
At this point, none of the three sides has the ability to win the speakership. It seems less and less likely that McCarthy can cobble together a coalition that will win the 218 votes that he needs without giving the Freedom Caucus members effective control of the chamber. Likewise, Democrats have no real hope of winning Republican votes for Jeffries. The rebellious faction of Republicans also has no chance of electing their candidate, but they can continue to act as spoilers to prevent the larger McCarthy faction from winning.
I’ve never been a fan of Kevin McCarthy, and after he was endorsed by both Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene (Q-Ga.), I’d have to vote against him as well. The problem is that I’d also find it difficult to support Jeffries and the rest.
What seems to be a disaster for Republicans might turn into a blessing in disguise. If the GOP continues to be divided, there might be an opportunity for some of the more moderate members of both parties to join together to elect their own consensus candidate. This strategy was recently endorsed by former 2016 presidential candidate and Ohio governor John Kasich.
A block of House Republicans should get together with Democrats to pick a speaker to run a coalition government, which will moderate the House and marginalize the extremists.
— John Kasich (@JohnKasich) January 3, 2023
The question is who the consensus candidate would be. Keeping in mind that the Speaker does not have to be a member of the House, the possibilities are practically endless, but most likely a successful candidate would be a member of Congress who is respected by both sides.
A successful candidate would almost certainly also have to be a Republican. It would be much easier for Democrats to vote for a moderate Republican, knowing that no Democrat has a chance of becoming Speaker, than for Republicans to vote to hand the speakership to the minority party.
One possible place to look for such a person is the House Problem Solvers Caucus. This bipartisan group is dedicated to reaching across the aisle to break the gridlock and find solutions. And a solution is what is needed now.
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) is one of the co-chairs of the caucus, which makes him a potential pick. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) is another name that often surfaces in discussions about a compromise candidate. If consideration is extended to former congressmen, Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Justin Amash (I-Mich.) are names that frequently pop up. Lynn Cheney’s (R-Wy.) name has also been bandied about, but I don’t think enough Republicans would support her.
Whoever the compromise Speaker turns out to be, there might be some clear advantages to having a less partisan, politically weaker leader of the House.
Most recent Speakers have used the post as a bully pulpit to hammer the opposition and restrict legislative initiatives by the minority party. Nancy Pelosi’s inclusion of Republicans in the January 6 Committee was one of the few memorable attempts by a Speaker to get the parties to work together.
Kevin McCarthy was not going to be any different. The man who would be Speaker has called for a number of investigations by the new Congress, including threats to investigate the investigators of the January 6 committee, Dr. Fauci, and of course, Hunter Biden’s laptop. Back in December, McCarthy tweeted, “Accountability is coming,” suggesting that the new GOP majority was more interested in investigating than governing.
A compromise Speaker could help us to avoid all that and maybe set a new precedent for how to get things done in Congress. For starters, a Speaker who represented both parties would be less likely to engage in partisan fishing expeditions. I’m not going to suggest that all investigations are bad, but both parties have abused the process.
A compromise Speaker might also be able to bring together bipartisan coalitions on legislation. Again, both parties have lost the ability to compromise and with it, the ability to get things done. Very little of consequence happens in Congress except by a party-line vote. As a result, most of the government’s business is passed by omnibus bills that no one has the time to read but that most are afraid to oppose because there are so many must-pass items inside.
A compromise Speaker might be able to change that. A leader backed by a bipartisan coalition would be more likely to listen to ideas from the minority party and help to build bridges of compromise across the aisle to assemble a bipartisan majority to pass smaller bills on specific topics.
This is the way Congress used to work before the “pen and phone” era. Now “compromise” is a dirty word and partisan wingnuts campaign on their refusal to work with the other party.
Another benefit of a moderate, bipartisan candidate is that it would, in Kasich’s words, “marginalize the extremists” in both parties. Right now, the Republican gang of 20 is able to block the speakership of the Republican favorite. The inmates are running the asylum.
However, in the case of a moderate Speaker, the radicals would lose their power as the House’s center of gravity shifted to the middle. As an added benefit, the shift would not be so far as to empower the radicals on the Democratic left. The power would be at the center-right, which is where most Americans are.
Some folks will tell you that all Democrats are radicals. I disagree. I think a lot of rank-and-file Democrats are decent, sensible people. If you look at GovTrack’s ideology scores, you’ll find that there is a lot of overlap between moderate Republicans and Democrats. It’s just that the squeaky wheels of the camera-seeking radicals get the grease of national attention.
I don’t like Kevin McCarthy and I don’t want him to be Speaker. I also don’t like any of the other candidates that have been put forward.
I do like the idea of impeding the radicals in both parties and empowering sane moderates. As it seems more and more likely that Kevin McCarthy is not going to be the next Speaker, I hope that there are some quiet discussions going on about a bipartisan compromise candidate.
It may be that the nation is surprised when an unknown congressman suddenly becomes Speaker before anyone knows what is happening. Expect a moderate surprise attack.
The alternative might be to keep voting down Kevin McCarthy until after the next election.
The alternative might be to keep voting down Kevin McCarthy until after the next election.
From your keyboard to god’s eyes.Report
BY GAWD IS THAT JUSTIN AMASH’S MUSIC?!?Report
Maybe I am being cynical but I assume the implicit, missing final sentence from Kasich’s tweet is ‘Most humbly, I nominate myself.’Report
There is a kind of ethical argument to be made that Kasich ought to be punished with the speakership for not abandoning his vain and hopeless run in 2016.Report
Like many hopes and dreams from moderate conservatives, this one will die on the alter of Republican politicians needing the MAGA base to get past the primaries. no Republican – even Kevin McCarthy – can get elected without them. So while only a handful of out of the closet MAGA Republican actually exist in the House, the movement in the body politic is sufficiently large to ensure there are no compromises with the Democrats. Afterall, the GOP has been saying for several decades that the Democats don’t deserve to govern and cheat to win elections. Why would McCarthy or any other Republican try to now compromise with t hem to get a Speaker elected?
And again – why are Democrats presumed to have agency here while Republicans aren’t?Report
What do you even mean by agency at this point? It’s clear that all y’all are expecting Democrats to act in unison, compromise on nothing, and get their way…because they deserve it. You’re expecting Republicans to reach across the aisle because it’s their duty to give in to the minority. Has there been a single scenario given in which Democrats display agency?Report
Democrats are in the minority. IF Republicans want their votes, Republicans have to come up with something. Republicans have to do the work. Democrats can’t – and shouldn’t – do Republicans work for them.
And Democrats are displaying agency every time they vote. They have chosen to put their guy forward and to back him fully and completely.Report
And Republicans aren’t displaying agency how?Report
in the conversation of should Democrats compromise with Republicans – the conversation we are having – no, they aren’t.Report
But the conversation we’ve been having over the past few days has mostly revolved around a few Republicans breaking away and voting for Jeffries, and this article supports a candidate from the middle for both sides. No one’s really talking about Democrats breaking away from Democrats. See Burt’s comment below, which takes this point as a given.Report
For the time being, it is a given. For very similar reasons as to both propositions. The incentives on one or both sides need to shift before there’s going to be any poaching.Report
We have yet to see an offer from the R side of the aisle that would entice the D side. Pointing a gun at one’s own head and saying stop me or I’ll shoot isn’t much of an incentive.Report
I’m not expecting the offer to come from the politicians.
I’m expecting it to come from the *DONORS*.Report
There are enough fabulously wealthy nihilists to fund 21 Republican Congress critters’ campaigns. It’s not that expensive.
Threatening the most moderate Republicans runs the risk they will decide if the campaign cash is going to dry up, or they’re going to be primaried from farther right by a well-funded opponent, perhaps they might as well caucus with the Democrats and retire.Report
This doesn’t sound like you’re describing real human behaviour.Report
I’m struggling to untangle the exact logic but something sort of like this does indeed seem to be part of the intra-GOP battle.
This is the most coherent explanation I can find:
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/conservative-group-says-primary-agreement-win-win-rcna64524
Seems the idea is to try to keep more moderate/establishment GOP candidates from getting outside help against ultra right wing primary challengers. Or at least that’s how I read it.Report
well that’s one way to purge the unfaithful I guess.Report
This is almost the exact opposite of what Michael Cain described, though. It’s non-outsiders not paying off competitors to non-moderates in exchange for not supporting a non-Democrat.Report
Is it? We have too many double negatives for my simple brain to compute.Report
Apparently some of the negotiation has involved exactly these kinds of issues, with the Club for Growth demanding restrictions on how a McCarthy aligned super PAC spends money in Republican primaries. I assume the goal is to try to keep more establishment Republicans from funding opposition to the obviously incompetent and/or charlatans.Report
perhaps they might as well caucus with the Democrats and retire.
Yes! Exactly! Speaker Jeffries!Report
Lynn Cheney’s (R-Wy.) name has also been bandied about, but I don’t think enough Republicans would support her.
It’s that martini-dry wit that keeps me coming back here.Report
On ballot #8, recently concluded a few minutes before posting this comment, Donald J. Trump of Florida got exactly one vote. I don’t know if, and if so how many, non-members have ever actually received votes before. But I think it’s fair to evaluate the potential of him winning on a subsequent ballot as something of a long shot.Report
I don’t think anyone seriously would consider a candidate outside the 118th House. A moderates-of-both-sides scenario would rip apart the party first making the contribution. I could see a few-strays-from-across-the-aisle scenario. But at this point I’d expect a ton of pressure on McCarthy to drop out and endorse Scalise. I’m not sure he’d get the 218 though. Jordan or Donalds might.Report
McCarthy appears on track to lose his 7th vote even though he made enough concessions to the hardliners to render the House of Representatives about as functional as the infamous Polish-Lithuania legislature.Report
Rep. Byron Donalds has 17 votes at present. McCarthy is done this round.Report
In the words of Nigel Tufnel, “These go to 11.”Report
By now, can’t they just say, “I’m pleased to nominate so-and-so to be Speaker of the House,” and sit down?Report
Hahahahahaha
Oh wait …Report
That you would propose doing such a thing and that I would agree to it is probably explanation enough for why you and I aren’t actually there in the Chamber right now.Report
I think we’re a long way from the resolution described in the OP.
The MAGA bloc has found a lever and they’re leaning into it for all it’s worth and these aren’t people who compromise. Compromising is swampish behavior. Or something a “wet” would do, to adopt Saul’s nomenclature from yesterday’s discussion.
And as we all seemed to concur yesterday, the Democrats have no real incentive to help McCarthy or any other Republican go over the top, absent the tender of a price that would absolutely doom the future of any Republican who might otherwise be willing to pay it.
We aren’t going to see Members pressed up against the hard wall of needing to actually get the House organized until existing spending or debt limit resolutions become imminent enough that default on the debt becomes a possibility. IIRC, we’re good for about eleven more months with the recent spending package passed three weeks ago.
If you’re sitting back with the popcorn for every vote, you might want to budget some extra cardio time into your daily routine.Report
At some point the Senate and the big donors will start to quietly weigh in behind the scenes. That will occur well before that point.Report
At this point, it’s probably cheaper to buy 6 RINOs and get Jeffries elected.Report
There aren’t 6 RINOs to be bought. They won’t budge – 20 years of demonizing of Democrats by the GOP and the conservative media universe means there’s no point in crossing the line unless you intend to retire in 2 years.Report
unless you intend to retire in 2 years.
I think it would be cheaper to convince 6 RINOs to retire in 2 years.
Sit on a board somewhere. Become a lobbyist!Report
“And as we all seemed to concur yesterday,”
It must great to know that you’ve been heard.Report
This is probably true. That said, I have seen a lot smart people argue that this or that won’t happen, or can’t happen, and I’m not buying any of it. This the fundamentally most unpredictable thing I’ve seen come down the pipe in a while. Anybody who thinks they know the resolution of this, or even the next meaningful developments, I suspect is very wrong.
Fwiw, this little episode is causing me to reevaluate some things on some basic levels that I wasn’t expecting to reevaluate.Report
Given the scarcity of your engagement here of late, I look forward to reading this reanalysis.Report
Obviously this looks really bad for the GOP. Apparently some think this will be resolved quickly. Either McCarthy can buy off enough critics to win a vote, or McCarthy can withdraw and Scalise gets majority. This could even be true. But there are still major obstacles to either of those happening.
And worse than that, no matter how it looks, the reality of what it is is much worse.
At the very least, there’s a significant minority of Republicans inside Congress and at the activist level who are looking for conflict, conflict in general and conflict within the party in particular. Conflict is unavoidable, in sports, in politics, and in life. But to go out looking for conflict for its own sake is profoundly stupid and nihilistic.
And as things stand in the House of Representatives right now, it’s not obvious that there are 218 votes for anything meaningful at all. We could have guessed beforehand that with the results of the election being what they were that we wouldn’t necessarily have a reliable working majority to ride out the ups and downs of this Congress. But what’s worse, if we’re relying on Boebert, Matt Gaetz and the rest of them, we don’t even have a nominal majority, which is a genuinely new development and a very bad one at that.Report
I wouldn’t assume this is thoughtless conflict or conflict for its own sake. This is the only chance for members to select the most important legislative leader in the country.
As for votes down the road, I’d guess that they’ll depend on the particular legislation – which is how it should be. This current standoff is because of Republicans thinking on their own. We see the same thing in Supreme Court decisions, with the lockstep liberals never varying from their ideology, but the Republican-nominated justices following their reading of the law and the case wherever it takes them. Meanwhile, the liberals will praise themselves for their displays of agency.Report
Oh but it is. Or more specifically, it is the rejection of the Republican Party (and the Republican conference within the House of Representatives) and its ability to call a play and then run whatever play is called. In short, more than any other this is the vote that defines who is a Republican. The idea that we’re negotiating payoffs to “win” this vote distresses me a great deal, whether it “works” or not.
I don’t want to see Republicans thinking on their own. That’s what the conference is for. Everything we’ve seen in the last day or so was already hashed out in conference, and a decision was made (and not by a close margin).
This is a time for Representatives-elect to show that they want to be part of the team or not. And for now, the answer is pretty clear. For 19 of them, they don’t. That has its own problems of course, but I’d rather get started on them than keep on pretending that we have a majority that in reality doesn’t exist.Report
I suppose its a good thing he gave away enough of the store to get his opposition down to 7. If that holds – and I can’t see what else he could give away to chip it any – then he’s got a problem.Report
That is an interesting analysis! Though, I would submit that for matters where actual legislative rubber is hitting the road there are enough Democratic votes available push the count up to reach a majority. What may not be plausible will be for this congress to be able to run with only GOP votes.Report
Well, yeah. This particular issue aside, the working majority that will probably end up controlling the chamber with 218+ voters will very likely have Reps and Demos both in it. But it’s anybody’s guess who will be in it and probably more important, when that will emerge.
Like I wrote before, this is most fundamentally unpredictable thing I’ve seen in a while. Right now, the only thing you can really be sure of is that there aren’t 218 votes available for anything.Report
Not completely true – they can muster that to adjourn!Report
Yup, your guess is as good as mine (better- perhaps you understand the inside baseball within the GOP more than I do) as to when/if a bipartisan accord will be reached/McCarthy gives up or the fringers fold.Report
And now Gaetz has nominated Trump.Report
CSPAN reporters suggest there’s some sort of a deal being cut, and there seem to be Republicans and Democrats negotiating with one another on the floor. (Just saw Matt Gaetz talking with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, among other odd couples.) Maybe I’ll have to eat my words!Report
I’ll believe it when I see it. “There’s a pending deal!” draws clicks. “Nothing’s changed,” doesn’t.Report
Imagining some poor high school student a century from now trying to write a term paper and having to explain to the class who Cat Turd 2.0 is and why he was significant in ending of the republic.Report
Don’t worry, history will have a earlier date for when the republic started collapsing, and this will have faded to a minor note that only historians remember.Report
“¿Fue esto antes o después del incidente de ‘Latinx’?”
“Durante.”Report
Clearly after 11 votes with the same outcomes the moderates have no plan and no backbone. There’s nothing left to give the bullies. So what’s next?Report
I, personally, think that they should have been prepared to try something else around lucky #7.Report
If I’m a Democrat, I’m prepared to make some significant concessions to Republicans I can stand if they vote for Jeffries. But I sure as hell ain’t voting for McCarthy.
if I’m a non-MAGA Republican, I’m prepared to make some significant concessions to Democrats I can stand if they vote for McCarthy. But I sure as hell ain’t voting for Jeffries.
If I’m a MAGA Republican, I’m winning (everyone is paying attention to me so I can make demands) with only 21 votes because i have a bigger bladder than anyone else in the pissing contest. Why should I do anything different?Report
Who is the most liberal Republican? Who is the most conservative Democrat?
Could we find 109 congresscritters on both sides of the aisle who want this shit to be behind us? (Reshuffle, if you need to.)Report
One wouldn’t vote *for* the other, they’d vote ‘present’. Only need a majority of votes, voting present lowers the number needed for a majority.
Your bigger point stands, but if this comes into play, more likely that it’s negotiated at the top level and the appropriate number of folks are told/given permission to vote present. In that scenario, most likely Jeffries gets some sort of powersharing agreement (with him as Jr. Partner). It would be a ‘win’ for Jeffries, so he’d take something rather than nothing.
I don’t think it works the other way for McCarthy… he’ll go down with the ship before he takes a Jr. position to Jeffries. To dislodge McCarthy, you’d need actual defectors; and, the moment there are defectors, I suspect someone else in the caucus would lead the coup and give the 20 their symbolic victory (plus the PAC concessions and seats on the Rules committee).
One of many things that could happen, but unless Jeffries honestly thinks he can get the defectors without the coup, he’s better off getting something rather than nothing.Report
Democrats would need 1, possibly 2, clean debt ceiling raises these next two years, the restart of the January 6th Committee or something like it, and probably a couple of key committee chairs or joint chairs to even consider any of this. I don’t see McCarthy, or any of the more moderate Republicans agreeing to any of that. Even with the non-aggression treaty he seems to have negotiated between the Club for Growth and the Congressional PAC, any Republican signing on to that deal would loose their primary.
The GOP made this bed. It seems they will have to lie in it a little longer.Report
Sure… now that we’re all whores, he who has the deadline will get the worse of the deal.
What’s the deadline? Staffers getting paid? Debt Ceiling (July 2023?)? Other items that need attending to? Who cares more about the thing that needs attending to?
Honestly don’t know. If there’s not *really* a reason for perpetual congress, then that might be an interesting development all in itself and would give us a new perspective on how long McCarthy is willing/able to wait everyone out.Report
the Debt ceiling will be a deadline. Appropriations will be deadlines – even though we have yet to see regular order appropriations in my 20 + year federal career.
And not paying staff would be problematic, but not yet limiting. My guess is once the Senate reconvenes next week and starts up work on legislation the lack of a functioning House will become apparent. And that’s when the donors will tell McCarthy AND the holdouts to knock it off.Report
I assume McCarthy would agree to Scalise before he’d agree to Jeffries.Report
I’d say its a safe bet.Report
Agreed, 9 out of 10 times this ends with an intra-party bargain.
I have no good way to separate the Gaetz’s and MTG’s from the other garden variety Freedom Caucus types in terms of what’s performative and what’s substantive and what it would take for them to declare victory and go home… presumably McCarthy and his team does.Report
It appears victory will only be declared over the dead carcass of the republic, at least for some:
Also note that MTG has voted for McCarthy 11 times. Boebert and Gaetz have not.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/house-speaker-leadership-vote-01-06-23/h_87db41d8e1c95c7a685c5fc832716407Report
MTG wants her committee assignments back and this is the priceReport
Sorry, I got my MTGs and Boebert’s crossed.Report
McCarthy has supposedly offered to leave the Speakership if five people don’t like him, and now if one person doesn’t like him. The obvious next play is to offer to not take the Speakership at all. To be honest, if I were a conservative Republican in the House, I would have supported McCarthy through the first few votes, but I would have taken the floor by now and nominated someone else.Report
My understanding is that is a reversion to the rule that says x# of congressmen may ‘motion’ for a vote on the speaker.
I’ll admit to not knowing how exactly this would work in practice as a weird way to obstruct the House by virtue of, say, calling for a vote after vote after vote, etc. Maybe the Rules have a cooling-off period? Not sure. But that particular item didn’t seem to worry the leadership team as they offered 5 then conceded 1 – stating that there wasn’t a practical difference.
But as a theoretical principle, it’s not bad (assuming proper protections against abuse) and is one of the things we probably should want if we want a less imperial speakerhsip.Report
He’s offered to allow a vote on being tossed out – not the same as leaving voluntarily. He’s plying the odds that once he’s chosen, the cabal will decide they need him more then he needs them.Report
“Leaving if they don’t like him” was a shorthand way of describing the process. I hope he capped it to once per day, but nothing would stop it from being both a constant threat and an easy way for an angry or pouty Congressman to get on the news.
A smarter move would have been to promise a new vote every six months.Report
Maybe? Absent an actual ‘thing’ happening, I think McCarthy is probably correct to think that once he’s speaker this sort of obstruction wouldn’t happen again and he’d clear the needed votes without much happenstance.
It would, if that supposition is correct, be worse to have a formal 6-month ‘reckoning’ vote which could be stalked and planned upon for just such a thing as what they are doing now. A 6-month top-up of their social media clout.
But either way, I’ve only seen the list of demands ask for the Rules change, not a pre-planned referendum – not that they couldn’t pivot or are even sure of what their demands are and why.Report
I’m thinking that every time he raises the debt ceiling by like 45 cents he’ll be facing a motion to vacate. If I were McCarthy I’d rather face a guaranteed six months from now “yeah, but it was only 45 cents”.Report
Good point; depends on the obstructionist limits to the Rules change whether he’d feel confident that the caucus as a whole would steamroll his Speakership once he’s already Speaker (which is the sense I get).
But if that’s a concern and a goal, he’d most certainly make sure that the first referendum would be after the July Debt Ceiling situation upcoming.Report
Is there a way for McCarthy+Jeffries to share the post? Alternate months or something? Let everyone claim they’ve won?Report
In a ceremony today honoring those fallen in the Jan 6 insurrection, only one (1) Republican chose to stand up.
All the others sided with the coup plotters. So there really isn’t any way to describe the two hundred twenty or so Republicans as “moderate”, so much as “enablers of treason.”
They may not lead the charge, but will helpfully sit down and turn their eyes away.Report
Of note:
Some of these – the ones requiring floor votes – will most surely go down, especially if the Democrats can be united against them. Things like the Holman Rule and the weaponization committee are just bad ideas not actually designed to do anything but generate sound bites and chill federal executive branch activities.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/house-speaker-leadership-vote-01-06-23/h_aa6925a3fe102cc9deb4c42a65bbbe4bReport