Learning To Stay Focused
What's happening now is a distraction.
It's been ten days since Kevin McCarthy took the gavel as Speaker of the House. And as expected, MAGA extremists are setting the agenda.
Despite a little grumbling here and there among the establishment "Main Street" Republicans, all voted for the rules package that formalizes concessions extracted from McCarthy during those 15 ballots. And none have publicly objected to the privately-circulated informal concessions. The moderates have pretty much kept their heads down and their powder dry, as the saying goes.
Predictably, the media has pounced and declared that this proves there is no such thing as "moderate Republicans", dismissing any suggestion that such a thing could possibly exist. Those who were expected to be heroes for the Democrats have been branded as cowards or worse.
But let's remember why we're here together — at this "meeting place for activists and those who support them." Unlike forums where hyperbolic partisan rhetoric is the point, here we must be realistic. We have work to do, and it's important to stay focused.
Declaring at the outset of the new Congress that there are no moderate Republicans is tantamount to saying "We quit, the MAGA extremists have won, there's nothing we can do until the next election. We'll just stand aside and let the destruction begin."
Obviously I was as disappointed as anyone that none of the moderates we lobbied in December and early January were willing to break with decades of tradition and practice, defy their leadership and vote with Democrats to elect someone other than McCarthy for Speaker.
But we all knew that was a longshot. And it would require an equally bold gesture from Democrats — that they'd be willing to vote for a Republican. The gesture never came.
On the third day of balloting, with McCarthy consistently short by about 20 votes -- precisely the moment when our dream of a cross-party alliance had the best chance of being realized -- Rep. Adam Schiff appeared on a popular daytime TV talk show known for its liberal tilt ("The View"). The hosts were enthusiastically discussing the proposal and asked what he thought about it. He declared categorically that neither the Republican nor Democratic conference would support a cross-party alliance. He didn't hesitate or equivocate. There was not even a momentary nod to the possibilty that such an alliance would isolate and weaken the extremists, enhance the integrity of the House of Representatives and pave the way for a constructive approach to addressing our country's serious problems.
That being the case, what we're seeing from our allies in the press right now is something akin to a tantrum, not a rational analysis. Why would any moderate Republican take a fall for a lost cause? And why should a few beleagured Republicans who have managed to actually put together a winning alliance in their home districts be scapegoated for an epic failure by both party leadership teams?
I am a proud progressive/liberal/Democrat. But from the vantage point of anyone not deeply embedded in the institution itself, it's clear that an overwhelming majority of House members, Democrats as well as Republicans, let their strong partisan loyalty empower its most radical minority, endangering our Congress every bit as much as January 6, 2020. We need to keep that in mind as we evaluate what just happened and decide what to do next.
The challenge is formidable.
But once McCarthy became Speaker and power was passed to the MAGA extremists, all that we've seen since is just the predictable follow-through on a script already written. So it's important that we not be distracted by the circus we already knew had come to town.
Most (but certainly not all) of what will happen in the House this year is performative not substantive. The first three bills that have actually passed in the House during the first week of the 118th Congress, as opposed to resolutions, committee assignments and the Santos sideshow, nicely illustrate the point:
HR 26 makes it illegal to kill a "survivor of abortion" (passed 220-210).
HR 23 rescinds increased funding for the IRS provided by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (passed 221-210).
And HR 22 prohibits the sale and export of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to China (passed 331-97).
The first two will never pass in the Senate. The third is bipartisan, and prohibits something that is not being done. Real, serious threats will come along soon enough. For example, failing to raise the debt ceiling comes to mind. We need to stay focused — not be distracted by the circus.
So what should we be doing? I have some ideas. But first, I'm eager to hear from you. Anyone can comment below, and anyone can reply to any comment, even (or maybe especially) a moderate Republican.
If you'd like to write an extended piece for posting separately, please let me know: JerryWeiss@substack.com
Thanks for this very thoughtful piece. Yes, we must avoid letting political pundits lead us to think that the situation in the House is completely hopeless. Though very difficult, progress on social goals is possible - but only if effective bridges are built between moderates. The question is how to protect moderates in the GOP wing from annihilation when seen by their radical colleagues as supporting agendas of 'the other side'. One area in which I would like to see some bridge building is on child health. With children's wards recently filled with kids suffering RSV and now a likely new COVID wave coming to schools, funding for child health might become 'touchable'.
On the more general point of alliance building, this morning's NY Times has a discussion between their most conservative opinion-writer, Ross Douthat, and two other Republicans. The whole article is worth a read, but here are a couple paras of likely interest:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/18/opinion/republicans-house-freedom-caucus-mccarthy.html
By Ross Douthat, Liam Donovan and Haley Byrd Wilt
Mr. Douthat is a Times Opinion columnist. Mr. Donovan is a Republican strategist. Ms. Byrd Wilt is an associate editor at The Dispatch.
"Douthat:
In trying to understand the moderates during the speakership fight, is it primarily a matter of temperament and attitude, or is it a matter of incentives? Meaning, if some of the moderates want to form an alliance with Democrats, is their assumption that doing that, even in a district won by Joe Biden, would just be a kiss of death in their next primary? Or do they just like McCarthy?
Byrd Wilt: Many of the moderates relied on McCarthy for campaign support. They didn’t appear ready to contend with the Freedom Caucus, at least not at this stage, partly because they think they have the numbers to advance their own priorities where the Freedom Caucus may not. But the Freedom Caucus does have the power to unleash chaos, both in the form of government shutdown standoffs and the debt ceiling deadline. And the moderates haven’t quite reckoned with how to address those things.
Donovan: I think it’s both temperament and incentives. Temperamentally, the moderates are team players, and the logical extension of that is never going to be siding with Democrats. But absolutely the reason Representative Matt Gaetz and others were able to be so flippant about that remote threat is that moderates joining hands with Democrats to beat conservatives would play right into their argument and ultimately be the end of those members’ future in the G.O.P. "
I thought the above was interesting on the question of cross-aisle alliances. There are also some interesting points about the differing lessons learned by the two sides from past 'games of chicken' over debt ceilings.
Best wishes - keep up the great writing.
Tom
On what can be done for child health and welfare. It would be good to see a push on extension of the child tax credit which expired late last year. One mechanism might be discussions over cuts to the overall budget of which the military portion the last Congress approved was far greater than the Biden Administration requested, perhaps leaving some room to negotiate along the lines of shift some of that portion not requested by the military to cover child welfare.
Another area is the agriculture bill. This often has very little to do with agriculture, and much to do about priorities of the food processors and farm lobby. However the new GOP chair is talking about nutrition (unfortunately he seems to mean 'desserts in school meals) but it would be great to see real discussions of the wider issues of SNAP, whole grains, less sugar in everything and other child nutrition issues. Oddly the two parties say that they both see a basis for bi-lateral movement on the bill. http://bit.ly/3iUFS4Y Let's see. There could be other areas that open up, during the budget debates over 'shifts of funds' as opposed to simple 'cuts'.