A Chance for Sanity in the House of Representatives?
Photo by Office of Speaker Mike Johnson
It took longer than I expected but Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Q-Ga.) has filed a motion to vacate the Speaker’s chair on Friday. The motion threatens Speaker Mike Johnson’s leadership of the House just after the lower body managed to put together a deal to avoid a government shutdown.
From his first day in the office, I assumed that Speaker Johnson’s days were numbered. The fragmented Republican caucus has empowered its lunatic fringe because no one faction is strong enough to garner the votes to elect a Speaker on its own. As a result, concessions to MGT’s MAGA stalwarts and the Freedom Caucus left the Speaker’s office much weaker than in the past. Now, the bills are coming due as MGT calls for a vote to remove Johnson from the post.
But the Democrats have an opportunity, if they choose to take it. Democrats could rescue Johnson and exact a price for doing so. Democrats could join with moderate Republicans to form a coalition of the sane to preserve Johnson as Speaker, rather than voting against him as they did with Kevin McCarthy last October.
In return for saving him, Democrats should insist that Johnson allow votes on much-needed bills such as the budget bills, aid to Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, and immigration reform. Johnson may be willing to deal now because, despite his best efforts, he has not been able to please the Republican radicals.
Johnson’s mortal sin was helping to pass a budget deal to try to avert a government shutdown. Some Republicans wanted to exact more concessions, and some members of the Republican kamikaze caucus apparently think that a government shutdown would hurt Joe Biden, but I’m convinced that others want to cause a default in a misguided attempt to reduce spending. Either course would probably be devastating for Republican electoral chances in November since Republican fingerprints would be all over the shutdown and/or default. I think some Republicans won’t vote for any budget bill. (Thomas Massie, I’m looking in your direction.)
The problem is that some Democrats think that they can make better use of the upheaval in the Republican ranks for partisan gain. For example, Johnny Palmadessa, a Democratic strategist, speculated on Threads that Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority Leader, might become the next Speaker.
Let me just say that anyone who seriously thinks Republicans will make Jeffries Speaker (before January) is probably smoking some illicit and mind-altering substance. The Republicans may be divided now, but they will unite to keep the speakership in GOP hands.
Other Democrats may favor letting the Republicans deal with the internal factional fighting themselves on the grounds that stoking Republican divisions is likely to help Democrats in November. The problem with this strategy is that it doesn’t get things done. Bills need to be passed and Democrats need to be the adults in the room if Republicans can’t run the House. While Congress dithers, Ukraine and Israel are running low on ammunition, China is eyeing Taiwan, and the border crisis continues.
I’m not a fan of Mike Johnson or his work as Speaker, but the odds are that if he is ousted by Team MGT, we will end up with someone worse. Speaker Jim Jordan, anyone?) A successful House coup by MGT would also elevate her stature in the GOP, something that would not be good for the country or the Republican Party.
These are very partisan times, but there is an opportunity to form a bipartisan coalition to get things done. Hopefully, Democrats learned their lesson from the chaos after the ouster of Kevin McCarthy because Republicans did not.
I think it would be political malpractice by Democrats to play any role in saving Johnson if that is even possible. The only way I could see any deal like that maybe making sense was when the military aid/immigration bill was on the table but Johnson made his decision then not to play ball.
I think us political junkies need to just accept the reality that nothing is going to happen in the House until after the election. If nothing else it at least paints a pretty stark picture of the differences between the parties. One tries to govern, one doesn’t.Report
Pretty much.
The idea that there is any remaining group of reasonable Republicans is absurd at this point. Any deal can be imploded by a single tweet from Trump, and he clearly does NOT want to “get things done” but rather, prefers chaos.
Democrats don’t have any power to change this, unless and until they get a majority.Report
Agreed.
And to that point it isn’t even clear that there is a single Republican that would vote to save Johnson if doing so meant voting along with the Democrats.Report
Rep. Gaetz, who we all think is an idiot, has told reporters that if the Speaker’s seat comes to a vote, there are at least three Republicans who will vote for Jeffries.Report
I don’t believe it. We don’t live in a timeline that bright.Report
So the Democrats shouldn’t make a deal in order to demonstrate that they try to govern?Report
If, per Rep. Gaetz, via the esteemed Mr. Cain above, there are 3 Republicans that would vote for Jeffries, I would take that deal to make him speaker.Report
Since the House has now recessed for two weeks – border “crisis” be damned we have to raise money to get reelected – I don’t see Greene’s motion going anywhere. Aside from the Gaetz quote – which is legit – AOC was interviewed over the weekend proposing the exact deal the OP lays out above to get Democrats to support Johnson. Which means that it’s likely now toxic to any remaining sane Republicans. Astute readers will note that all the Republicans who have left recently or have announced plans to leave are all pillorying their own colleagues for the lack of productivity this chaos is causing.
Johnson has also finally discovered that governing is not a single party in a single House game, and as much as said so last week. The Freedom Caucus has discovered how little power they have when Democrats are willing to reach across the aisle.Report
I commented a few weeks ago about parties with a slim majority claiming a mandate. This case certainly fits the bill of thinking there’s a mandate where none exists.Report
I used to argue with someone who claimed that Bill Clinton had a mandate in 1992.
My argument was something like “He got 43% of the vote. I’m not saying he didn’t win the election but how can you claim a mandate?”
“It was a mandate *AGAINST* Reaganism/Bushism!”
So that’s how it’ll probably be played.Report
Chip Roy seems to think its a mandate to scream at his own colleagues about not doing anything while blocking their bills.Report
Yeah, people who think they have a mandate sure are crazy!Report
As political definitions go, a mandate just means legitimacy to govern.
Pluralities can claim a mandate and be technically correct while still sounding silly when using the term.Report
I’m depressed this am, so… 6-3 is not a slim majority, but large enough to claim a mandate. Tomorrow the Court hears FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine to decide whether the states for themselves or the SCOTUS for the nation as a whole can overrule decisions made by the FDA almost a quarter-century ago.Report
We are, quite literally, living that political commercial where a woman is sitting in an exam room with her doctor discussing her problem pregnancy, and a couple politicians and black robed judges are speaking over the doctor to add their opinions to her medical options.Report
I think a large part of the problem is too many liberals and leftists don’t actually consider the make up of SCOTUS when formulating political plans. So they think the margins in the House and Senate matter, when the margin at the SCOTUS is equally if not more important.Report