Nihilists Gotta Nihil
Chaos still reigns in the House of Representatives, and will continue to do so for at least another week. After deposing their own speaker -- for the first time in American history -- the Republicans decided to celebrate by doing what they do best: go on vacation for a week. You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried, folks.
The speaker pro tempore (Latin for: "for the time being") who is attempting to lead the Republican Party through the chaos announced this, even though the clock is now ticking on the next impending government shutdown. But Republicans have never cared as much about actual governance as they do about whatever their next circus act is going to be.
Kevin McCarthy surprised many by announcing that he wouldn't be in the running to take back his old job, which set off a frenzy among his fellow Republicans, many of whom have now already thrown their hats into the ring. My reaction to all this was: "Who would want the job?!?" Seriously -- it seems like a one-way ticket to political irrelevance. Beginning with Newt Gingrich's ignominious exit from the chair way back in the 1990s, every single Republican who has held the speaker's job has either been forced to resign by unruly elements within their own ranks or actually forced out (now that McCarthy made history): Dennis Hastert, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and now Kevin McCarthy. A one-way ticket to political oblivion seems almost guaranteed with the job, for Republicans.
Even without that dismal track record, the job itself is virtually impossible. The Chaos Caucus (starting with the Tea Party, winding through the Freedom Caucus to whatever the faction of hotheads are calling themselves now) has not really changed their tactics, throughout all of this. Their demands are simple: they want 100 percent of their legislative demands; they want the speaker to essentially pass their bills and then refuse to compromise one inch, no matter who is in charge of the Senate or the presidency; and anyone with the temerity to cut any sort of compromise deal with the Democrats needs to go, period. As you can see, this is insane. Any speaker who fully gave in to these demands would guarantee a permanent government shutdown, with no end in sight.
It truly is political suicide to contemplate stepping up to the job of speaker of the House right now. In fact, whoever does get the job could easily be deposed by Thanksgiving. It is a real possibility that the next speaker will set a record not just for being the second speaker deposed by his or her own caucus in American history, but also for shortest tenure in the job ever. McCarthy made it over 250 days in the job. Whoever follows him might not hit 50. What used to be a theoretical and farfetched "what if" notion has now become reality, so it must be considered.
I mean, what is the best case scenario for the hotheads? They reluctantly back one of the speaker candidates or another (maybe Jim Jordan, he's certainly hotheaded enough), but eventually they have to decide on whether to back a candidate that the rest of their caucus supports. Whether it happens before the first speaker vote or during multiple rounds (as before), they'd go to this candidate and try to get some promises for their support. Some promises seem almost mandatory for anyone willing to take the job, since the hotheads have already proven that Democrats aren't going to come riding to anyone's rescue. So promises are made.
Maybe this speaker follows through on the promises, during the 45-day period leading up to the next shutdown crisis. Maybe they even pass the remaining eight appropriations bills with everything the hotheads want included in them. Then the House Republicans, led by their speaker, will announce: "We're done. That's the budget, take it or leave it." They will attempt to wash their hands of the matter and place any blame for a government shutdown on Senate Democrats and President Joe Biden.
This, obviously, isn't going to fly. Those House budget bills will be overloaded with poison pills that Democrats will never vote for. The Senate will pass its own budget (either before the deadline or just afterwards). It will likely be a single omnibus bill rather than 12 individual bills. That alone will enrage the House GOP hotheads, for some inexplicable reason.
Sooner or later, a deal will have to be struck. It could just be a total stalemate deal -- last year's budget numbers will continue, or perhaps the numbers from the budget deal Biden struck with McCarthy back during the debt ceiling crisis will be used. A few extraneous must-pass items will be included as well.
What is going to happen when the new speaker announces this deal and puts it on the House floor? My guess is: exactly what just happened. The budget will pass (with lots of Democratic votes and all the sane Republicans as well), and then Matt Gaetz (or some other hothead, maybe they'll agree to take turns or something) will file another motion to vacate the chair. To them, compromise with any Democrat on anything is high treason. That's not going to change in the next few months, to state the obvious.
We will wind up right back where we find ourselves now. And I will be wondering, once again: "Who in their right mind would even want this job?!?"
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
It's assumed that the speaker pro tempore will simply conduct the election of a new speaker and be done. But the election could be stalemated long enough that the speaker pro tempore might have to deal with getting some kind of budget through. Actually, that would be the most graceful solution, because the speaker pro tempore, unlike the actual speaker, cannot be subjected to a vote of no confidence called for by a single representative.
What would it take to get Democrats to find a relatively-moderate Republican to support for speaker?
If the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus/Chaos Caucus doesn’t relent then one of the following two things will have to happen.
(1) Most likely a handful of vulnerable Democrats will cross the aisle to support a negotiated moderate (read grown up) or else,
(2) It’s highly unlikely that a handful of vulnerable Republicans cross the aisle to support…Hakeem Jeffries?
I know I know, it objectively is a long shot. But somebody has to at least do the bare minimum in the House.
Seems to me as though the most likely outcome is that the chaos caucus decides who they want (for now, until they change their mind), the rest of the Republicans go along with it, the Democrats keep on just voting for their guy, and we have a speaker who wants shutdown and default.
If Dems want to keep the Ukraine war funding flowing, McCarthy may have been their best hope when it come to the speakership of the House. It doesn't seem like any other possible Republican speaker will be for continuing that policy.
Besides, there is waning public support for the Ukraine war effort, anyways. And, you know what Biden always says ... no foreign policy objective can be long sustained, no matter how worthwhile, without the informed consent of the American people ... worthwhile and informed being the suspect and key words, respectively.
Ukraine still has about 5 billion in US support to use up (thanks to the Pentagon accounting error!) and the seized Iranian small arms ammunition that the US will transfer to Ukraine - maybe that will finally make the difference.
you're right liz, allowing vladimir putin to conquer and subjugate his neighbors would be a much less expensive policy. oh, wait...
maybe after the first three words you stopped paying attention?
Joshua, you still don't get what I am saying. Maybe you will when this war finally ends with pretty much the status quo ante.
This has never been about how much money Ukraine needs or how expansive Ukraine policy should be.
it's about the right of self-determination that every free nation is entitled to, and standing up to tyranny however it's humanly possible to do so. if it's actually the case that public opinion in support of freedom and justice is waning, then it's time to change public opinion.
Nations don't have rights. You can say that nations have rights, or you can say that people have rights, but when push comes to shove (and it does, sooner rather than later), you can't have it both ways.
It's about whether our species is going to die off in a nuclear omnicide within the next few decades. Russia, without its empire, is a third-rate regional power. Its only real asset is nuclear blackmail. There are a lot of third-rate regional powers in the world. If we make it clear that careless nuclear blackmail now works miracles for third-rate regional powers whose conventional military capabilities have been rotted away by corruption, enough of them will get the message, and Mutual Assured Destruction will not have any chance of working.
We will all die.
Well, I'm old and obese, so I'll die even sooner. But, unless we resist Russia's nuclear blackmail much better than we have been, I'll die in a world where no one who's young now will ever have a great-grandchild.
[8] Status quo ante 2022_02_23, or status quo ante 2014_02_19?
Dan,
I think the former is more likely ... or something very similar to it.
Now, I don't mean to say that particular outcome would be the endgame for Ukraine for all eternity. But, given the alternatives at this point, it's not a bad 'starting' point.
If this latest long war scenario plays out for years rather than weeks or months, however, the long term prospects for Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity I think are greatly reduced.
Joshua,
it's about the right of self-determination that every free nation is entitled to, and standing up to tyranny however it's humanly possible to do so. if it's actually the case that public opinion in support of freedom and justice is waning, then it's time to change public opinion.
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as all that.
As for public opinion, support for freedom and justice is probably pretty high. But, people today have seen too many long wars in their lifetime and plenty of bad US policy that led to them with precious little to show for it.
How do you change public opinion and make the American people see that continued US military and financial support of Ukraine is in their best interests?
I think you start to do that by clarifying what the mission is and explaining how that mission will be accomplished. So far, neither the Biden administration nor its NATO allies have been able to do that. I don't think they have the first clue. And, that is a recipe for disaster.