What an absolute shit show. As you know, eight House Republicans, led by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), removed Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) as Speaker on October 3 through Gaetz’s motion to vacate, H.Res. 757. The effort came on the heels of a continuing resolution to keep the federal government open through November 17 after far-right Republicans made the appropriations process incredibly difficult to navigate. Understandably, House Democrats were in no mood to help McCarthy keep his job, for various reasons, all of which make complete sense.
Since McCarthy was deposed, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) has served as Speaker Pro Tempore, pursuant to Rule I, Section 8(b)(3)(A) of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (Some have also called him “acting Speaker” or “interim Speaker.”) McHenry was chosen by McCarthy to serve in the role in the event of a vacancy. The rule exists for continuity of government, but that’s a separate matter. In this role, McHenry has only limited power unless the House decides otherwise.
There’s no point in relitigating why McCarthy was removed. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), whose conservative credentials are not in question, gave one of the best speeches I’ve seen on the House floor when he explained why McCarthy should stay in office and debunked every complaint against him.
Since McCarthy’s removal, though, the House has been completely paralyzed. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) jumped in the race for Speaker. McCarthy declined to run again. A rule change was offered by Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Chip Roy (R-TX) to raise the threshold in the conference to win the nomination from a simple majority to 217 votes. (Considering vacancies, a majority of the House is 217.) This would ensure whoever won the nomination would have the votes on the floor. That rule change was defeated.
Scalise won the nomination in the conference on October 11, with 113 votes to Jordan’s 99. Twelve members of the conference voted for other candidates, present, or did not vote. One of those who voted present was Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), who asked Scalise and Jordan if the 2020 presidential election was stolen and didn’t like the answer either gave. Buck is probably the most interesting member of the conference right now. He has opposed the impeachment inquiry into President Biden, demanded lower spending levels for FY 2024 appropriations than most other House Freedom Caucus members, voted to remove McCarthy, and now making whether a candidate for Speaker believes the 2020 presidential election was stolen or not his deciding factor for his vote for the role. Buck was also passed over for the chairmanship of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, which may also have something to do with his vote.
Scalise didn’t have the votes to win the gavel on the floor, so he withdrew on October 12. Jordan threw his name in again and appeared to be on a trajectory of landing the nomination in conference without any opposition until Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) decided to challenge him. Now, Scott is an interesting character. He has served since 2011 and is a reliable vote for leadership, but he’s not a well-known figure. He has tangled with the House Freedom Caucus before. Despite jumping in only hours before the conference met, Scott managed to get 81 votes. Jordan won the nomination, with 124 votes. (Full disclosure: I met Scott when he was in the Georgia General Assembly and supported his 2010 run for the House. I actually had one of his signs in my yard during that cycle.)
Although the Fitzpatrick-Roy rule change was defeated again, the conference voted on whether or not members would support Jordan on the floor. Fifty-five members said no. That’s where we are right now. Jordan has the weekend and Monday to get the votes he needs on the floor to be Speaker.
Can Jordan get the votes? It’s difficult to say. There are multiple arguments for and against Jordan. Most of the conference will vote for the nominee for Speaker almost regardless of who it is. That’s true at the beginning of a new Congress as much as it is now. There are also many who just want this to be over. There are some who are worried about their seats, like Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-VA). The truth is that the House was likely lost before McCarthy was removed.
Of the 55 members who declined to vote for Jordan on the floor, who will break? Well, we don’t know who they are since it was a secret ballot. We can make some safe assumptions, like Buck and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL). Former Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-VA) tweeted that several Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee and House Appropriations Committee are lining up against Jordan. It’s one thing to cast a vote by secret ballot against Jordan and quite another to do it in public on the floor.
Jordan has supposedly said that the nominee shouldn’t go to the floor without the votes. Clearly, Jordan doesn’t have the votes. There are rumors that Jordan’s supporters are resorting to some tactics that have angered House Freedom Caucus members in the past, including a public vote in the House to out the opposition and threats of primary challenges. Keep in mind that there are 18 Republicans who represent districts that President Biden won. There are 20 Republicans in highly competitive seats. Primarying any of these members with, say, a far-right conservative could very well mean Democratic gains. Even if far-right candidates lose in these primaries, an incumbent Republican would have to spend to win renomination.
If Jordan can’t get the votes to win, where do House Republicans go next? It’s hard to say. The House needs a Speaker, and it needs one soon. House Republicans could keep looking in the conference to find the right member to unite the conference. Names that have been floated are House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN), Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), and Republican Study Committee (RSC) Chairman Kevin Hern (R-OK). Emmer isn’t a far-right conservative, but he has support in the House Freedom Caucus. Trump world seems to dislike Emmer, though, for some reason. Johnson is a former RSC chair and is a conservative member who doesn’t have any real baggage other than being a hard partisan. Hern hasn’t been around long, but he leads the largest caucus of conservatives in the House. Like Johnson, Hern lacks baggage other than being a hard partisan.
There are other options as well, which, admittedly, are unlikely to come to fruition. One of those is giving McHenry more power as Speaker Pro Tempore to move legislation. The necessity of aid for Israel and Ukraine, even if the latter isn’t supported by many Republicans, is becoming clearer by the day. Another CR is almost a certainty since the House got thrown into chaos by Gaetz and his cohorts. However, there’s an open question if anyone in the conference can get the 217 votes needed to be elected Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore may have extraordinarily limited power—essentially, under a basic reading of the rule, the power only to conduct the vote to replace McCarthy—but the House could vote to set a precedent to give the Speaker Pro Tempore more power. It’s a tricky step, and it may take Democratic votes to pull it off. That prospect has been floated by Reps. Ed Case (D-HI), Jared Golden (D-ME), Josh Gottenheimer (D-NJ), and Susie Lee (D-NV).
Another is that moderate Republicans work with House Democrats to form a bipartisan coalition government. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has urged Republicans to take this route. That just doesn’t seem likely.
Those of us on the outside are just ready for the House to work. Yesterday, former Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI) tweeted, “Finding a new Speaker of the House should be a relatively easy vote. They should be looking for the best manager and administrator in the conference. Not the biggest fighter. Not the loudest mouth. Not the biggest partisan either. The speaker needs to call ball and strikes.”
Conservatives are of the mind that if one of them holds the gavel, Congress will magically change. That’s not going to happen. It’s not a matter of fighting harder or owning the libs more. Conservatives have mistaken messaging for governing. That’s the fundamental problem that I can see right now. Maybe they’re not interested in governing, which is a problem in and of itself.
Governing doesn’t mean that you have to give up on everything you want. I’m a big fan of gridlock in government because it slows the growth of government, but I believe that gridlock is a tool to get incremental gains. Gridlock for the sake of gridlock is pointless. Take the wins you can get and live to fight another day. Unfortunately, incrementalism doesn’t appear to be in the game plan for far-right conservatives. The failure to rely on incrementalism will translate to the failure of this Republican majority, regardless of who holds the Speaker’s gavel.