As
House Republicans
struggled to agree on who should lead the chamber last week, pundits and politicians on the Right told the public repeatedly that the mess was understandable because, well, democracy is messy. This is true, as is the argument that rigorous debate between factions inside a political party is beneficial.
For example, there is no question that many of the House’s procedures are in desperate need of reform. Few conservatives would argue that stand-alone spending bills on individual items of business aren’t preferable to one behemoth omnibus bill filled with pork barrel spending, especially one that contains more than 4,000 pages and is delivered the day before lawmakers are expected to vote. Congressmen must also be able to propose amendments to legislation regularly, and debate on those amendments should be required. Moreover, power has become too concentrated in the House speakership, which diminishes the voices of other members.
These were just a few of the House Freedom Caucus members’ concerns, and they were right to address them with the man who will lead the caucus.
However, there comes a time, especially when the debate becomes more of a spectacle than a legitimate search for a solution, when rigid demands must give way to compromise.
As the stalemate continued into its third day last week,
Elon Musk
made an important point: “If not [Rep. Kevin] McCarthy, then seriously who?” It was a valid question. McCarthy, with his less-than-stellar conservative record, was not the perfect nominee. But no other serious candidate had come forward, and none of those proposed by the Freedom Caucus members had been able to garner more than 20 Republican votes. McCarthy, on the other hand, had won the support of more than 90% of the GOP caucus. One of his contenders, Florida Rep. Byron Donalds, had the backing of just 10%.
Throughout the grueling process, McCarthy continued to compromise, eventually providing a written list of concessions that addressed all of the legitimate grievances of the Freedom Caucus members.
Even Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Lauren Boebert (R-CO), two of the most outspoken critics of McCarthy’s bid for the speakership, seemed delighted with the concessions they’d extracted. Yet when it came time to make a decision, Gaetz voted present, as did Boebert. Although this had the effect of lowering the number of votes needed to win to 217, it still left McCarthy one vote short of victory, and neither Gaetz nor Boebert would agree to switch their votes. Gaetz also voted to adjourn the session until Monday morning.
Inexplicably, Gaetz had a sudden change of heart and reversed his vote to adjourn, opting to move on to a 15th ballot. According to the
New York Times
, Trump had called Gaetz, Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs, and the other three GOP holdouts.
But Gaetz once again voted present. Biggs and the last three holdouts also changed their votes for other candidates to present, lowering the threshold required for victory, and finally, on the 15th ballot, McCarthy won the speakership.
His victory came at a heavy price, and he’ll have to operate on a pretty short leash. Much like the tarnishing of a once-solid candidate during a bruising intra-party primary, last week’s theatrics have weakened McCarthy.
Although I’ve never been a McCarthy fan, it struck me that over the course of four days, he’d done an awful lot of compromising while the minority members, well aware of the power they held, called all the shots. Members’ personal attacks on McCarthy, in particular those from Gaetz and Boebert, only added to the strain.
Even after their demands had been met, some members continued to squeeze McCarthy for personal concessions such as committee assignments. This crossed a line, and what had begun as a good-faith negotiation eventually turned into a hostage situation.
Two of the most basic principles of democracy are majority rule and the “
protection of individual and minority rights
.”
There’s no question McCarthy’s willingness to work with the minority within his party and reform the House leaves the chamber in a better position than it was under former Speaker
Nancy Pelosi’
s rule. But at what cost? The Republican holdouts’ continued obstruction embarrassed the party and gave Democrats much more leverage than they would have had if Republicans had remained unified. This wasn’t democracy in action — it was a political hijacking.
Indeed, the leadership debacle raises concerns about the House GOP’s ability to unite around critical issues and initiatives once the legislative session begins. Say what you will about Democrats, but regardless of what goes on behind closed doors, they consistently present a united front and rarely air their party’s divisions.
House Republicans would be wise to remember Ben Franklin’s words at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, where debate among members had devolved into bitterness and deep division. Acknowledging that the document wasn’t perfect, he told his colleagues to “administer it.”
Franklin
wrote
: “For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all of their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly, can a perfect production be expected?”
The House majority is all we have right now. And conspicuous division among members is a luxury we can’t afford if we hope to win back the White House and the Senate in 2024.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
Elizabeth Stauffer is a contributor to the
Washington Examiner
and the
Western Journal
. Her articles have appeared at MSN, RedState, Newsmax, the Federalist, and RealClearPolitics. Follow her on
Twitter
or
LinkedIn
.
