A Few Thoughts on the 118th Congress
Mostly about the majority party.
First, the easiest vote of consequence (as opposed, say, to voting for a resolution to declare National Kumquat Day) that a House majority should have is in choosing the Speaker. And yet, it took the current majority 15 rounds. This does not bode well, at all, for the legislative efficacy of this House. And yes, I know that the GOP hasn’t exactly shown itself to be full of policy wonks of late, but this display was especially bad.
Second, may I note that one of the main skills needed in an effective Speaker of the House is the ability to assemble the needed votes to pass a bill or resolution before going to the floor? Kevin McCarthy did a particularly poor job of that, as evidenced by his loss in the 14th round of voting, which came as a surprise to him after he had confidently told the press that he knew he could win because he could count.
Third, it should be noted that one of the reasons being in the majority in the House is considered to be a good and significant thing for the majority party is because the speakership has a lot of power. Yet, this no longer appears to be the case (pending a full understanding of what McCarthy gave away so he could have a title and cool offices). The Speaker’s ability to guide the party’s agenda is central to majority power, especially as expressed via the Rules Committee and, specifically, the conditions under which floor debate takes place. If the rebels have managed to substantially curtail those powers, they may have slit their own majority’s throat.
So, fourth, I have to wonder if the crafty Freedom Caucus rebels haven’t inadvertently given more power to the minority party insofar as whatever has empowered individual members of the Freedom Caucus to cause chaos on the floor will, at least in part, be available to the Democrats as well. Again, we don’t really know the specifics of these deals, but if, for example, one of the concessions makes it far easier for individual members to offer floor amendments to bills, that tool will be open to the Democrats as well. At a minimum, it will give the Democrats the ability to force Republicans to take votes they don’t want to take and to slow down bills Republicans want to pass. In short, empowering individual members, which seems to be a generic goal of the rebels won’t just empower Republicans. Giving away power to individual members of Congress isn’t going to be limited to members of the majority.
To restate the basic point: it is almost as if the rebels think that they can empower themselves, but only within the bubble of the majority because they know that being in the majority is good without understanding why being in the majority is good.
I mean, sure, having the most votes is the ultimate power, but that requires unity, and it isn’t as if the Republican Party has spent the first week of the 118th Congress showing how unified it is.
Can’t wait for a Democratic representative, who can count who is in the chamber, make a very timely motion to vacate the Chair.
@Scott: I haven’t found anything to tell me whether a motion to vacate is privileged, or if there are only particular times at which it can be made.
In the years I spent working as a legislative aide in Missouri, my observation was that bringing a vote to the floor was something like a marriage proposal: something you shouldn’t do unless you pretty much know the answer.
Adding to that analogy–McCarthy’s fiasco feels like one of those very public proposals that doesn’t go as planned.
@Jen: A great analogy.
@Jen:
Jen – Where you working in Missouri while Bob Holden was in any of his elected offices, including Governor? He’s my cousin, by marriage. A good man.
Ed
@EddieInCA: Yes indeed! He was State Treasurer when I was working in the legislative branch. I’d moved on to PR by the time he was elected Governor. He is a wonderful person.
@Jen:
I got to go to his inauguration for Governor. What a great four days!!! He’s the type of politician – Dem or GOP – that we need; decent, kind, pragmatic, and honest. But, frankly, he’s just too nice for the current state of American politics.
Isn’t this true only if one’s interest in power is to gain something or create something? These radicals already have everything they want – celebrity on the RWNJ circuit and populist support for the primaries of their safe districts. They don’t even need to maintain the favor of the Republican donor class, at least for the time being, to keep what they have. They will be able to wreak havoc on their enemies – people of color, liberals, elite RINOs – with impunity.
It’s been well established that for the Taliban 20 the objectives are only cruelty and chaos. It’s textbook terrorism – an asymmetric power born of the terrorists’ willingness to destroy themselves as long as they bring down their enemies with them.
@Scott F.: This is a legitimate question, but kind of hit my point: being in the majority is only worth what it promise if, in fact, there is a functional majority–and there may not be. I do think some of these rebels are acting like they can have their cake and eat it too, but I am skeptical. Some, like Gaetz and Boebert are just in it for the lulz and the celebrity of it all.
Actually, textbook terrorism is using asymmetric power to bring a more powerful ally into a position of capitulation on some set of demands. It isn’t violence for violence’s sake.
LINK
My emphasis.
https://yastreblyansky.blogspot.com/2023/01/narratology-what-they-want-from-kevin.html#more
snip
I think the Taliban 20 have misread the room. I sense – with no great basis in fact, just straws in the wind – that the American people are sick of the endless bullshit from MAGAts. I think this will end up being an own-goal for the GOP, so to quote Obama, my response is, ‘Proceed.’
@Steven L. Taylor:
A narrow definition. I prefer a broader definition: The use of fear to modify the behavior of a target audience in an intended way.
One example: 9/11, intended to provoke a reaction. in accordance with Bin Laden’s desire for a holy war (mission accomplished, sort of, BTW).
@charon:
Another example: The Timothy McVeigh/ OK City bombing, which was unsuccessful at provoking the intended race war.
When you die you will go straight to Heaven as you have already spent your time in hell.
The MAGA 20 don’t want power. They don’t want to pass legislation. They want to grandstand and have conniption fits and investigations and make a lot of noise. They are nihilists.
@Hal_10000:
Must be exhausting.
Message to the crazies, perhaps:
(And may gawd help ye if they ain’t)
Leaving aside the standard “political opposition is evil” discussion which is ignoring Pr. Taylor’s most interesting observation, that is if the soi-disant Caucus of radicals has not potentially given the Democrats an operational gift :
.
Not being conversant in the rules making specific here to know if it is admissable to craft rules that restrict rights to a specific group, but nevertheless the lesson I take from Anglo law deal crafting – unless the rules writers are quite clever in drafting (which if McCarthy is running this then would assume competence not in evidence), they do rather risk giving a clever and well-focused opposition the tools to disrupt them.
Hopefully the new leadership then is as good as Madame Pelosi
Generically it is rather my impression that idealogues of all colours rather tend to be blind to the potential for their pet tool/policy etc to be used in ways or directions unanticipated (as like referendum from the facile slogans of more transparency, more ‘democracy’).
@charon: I really like and appreciate the observation that the holdouts were comprised primarily of legislators with 1/6 vulnerabilities. Also, they seem to want to be able to credibly threaten a default, presumably as a bargaining chip. But for what?
Wow, these guys.