Kevin McCarthy has a choice to make.
The Republican House speaker from California can spend the next 18 months groveling before a dozen or so right-wing zealots — indulging their partisan fantasies of “owning the libs,” taking down the president and the Justice Department, and using the threat of government shutdown to impose radical policies on a country that doesn’t want them.
Or, as he did with the bipartisan debt ceiling deal he negotiated with a Democratic president, McCarthy can work with pragmatists and moderates of both parties to get some modest things done in a way that helps the country and improves Republican prospects in the 2024 election.
The glad-handing McCarthy continues to hope against hope that he can somehow avoid this painful choice. But as his two GOP predecessors discovered before leaving in frustration, his majority is too slim, his caucus too divided — and the renegades far too demanding — for that to work. That way lies another failed speakership.
Pragmatists and moderates of both parties have a tough choice to make, too. Say what you will about the members of the right-wing Freedom Caucus — and certainly there is plenty to criticize — there is no denying they are focused and engaged and willing to take heat for the things they really care about. Centrists and pragmatists must learn to be just as determined and muscular.
Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
That’s my beef with the moderates of both parties. They complain about how extremists have pushed their caucuses too far to the left or the right. But faced with opportunities to force things back into the center, they flinch, unwilling to face criticism from caucus colleagues and the partisan hordes on social media.
So here’s the deal, as President Biden would say: If moderates and pragmatists of both parties want to marginalize the extremes once and for all — if they are really serious about governing and bipartisan compromise — then they need to set aside the partisan norms by which the House has always operated, and give the speaker a different way of doing business.
Now, bear with me through a brief romp into the parliamentary weeds.
Speakers control the House through rules — not the impenetrable “Rules of the House” that are adopted at the beginning of each two-year session, but temporary “rules” that allow the House to move immediately to the next piece of legislation, setting how long the debate will be and who can offer which amendments. In recent years, as the House has become increasingly partisan, that debate has been brief and amendments few. The effect has been to shut out members of the minority party — roughly half the House — from participation in the legislative process.
Temporary rules are crafted by the House Rules Committee, most of whose members are beholden to the speaker. And because these rules provide the parliamentary mechanism by which the speaker and the majority party control the legislative agenda, members of the majority party are expected to always vote in favor of rules — whether or not they intend to vote for the underlying bill — while members of the minority are expected to vote no as told by the party brass.
That norm was set aside two weeks ago, when the right-wing zealots voted against the debt ceiling rule and several dozen moderate Democrats voted in favor. Resentful that they had been outmaneuvered, extremists took revenge on the speaker by subsequently voting against the rule by which the House would have moved on to its next order of business.
I think we can all agree it’s crazy to allow the uncompromising extremists in Congress to dictate policy to everyone else. So here’s a deal that Democratic moderates could offer McCarthy to sideline the Republican renegades. On legislation with a serious chance of passage (and these days, there aren’t many), Democrats can provide the necessary votes to pass the “rule” — but only if moderates from both parties can offer a reasonable number of germane amendments. That won’t guarantee bipartisan compromise, but it would become possible.
A similar arrangement in the Senate could restore a modicum of majority rule to that dysfunctional chamber. A gang of 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats is enough to strike a bargain to end filibusters and “holds” on bills and nominations with significant bipartisan support. That would undermine the current practice of the minority party filibustering virtually everything. And it would put an end to showboat senators log-jamming nominations, as Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) has done recently with military promotions and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) has threatened to do with Justice Department nominations.
These modest steps, easily within the power of moderates and pragmatists, would neutralize extremists, break through the partisan gridlock and jump-start bipartisan compromise to solve some of the big issues facing the country.
It is easy — too easy — to blame the zealots for hijacking the legislative process. The only reason the hijackers succeed is because party leaders and the quiescent majority of reasonable lawmakers won’t muster the courage and imagination to stop them.
The Republican House speaker from California can spend the next 18 months groveling before a dozen or so right-wing zealots — indulging their partisan fantasies of “owning the libs,” taking down the president and the Justice Department, and using the threat of government shutdown to impose radical policies on a country that doesn’t want them.
Or, as he did with the bipartisan debt ceiling deal he negotiated with a Democratic president, McCarthy can work with pragmatists and moderates of both parties to get some modest things done in a way that helps the country and improves Republican prospects in the 2024 election.
The glad-handing McCarthy continues to hope against hope that he can somehow avoid this painful choice. But as his two GOP predecessors discovered before leaving in frustration, his majority is too slim, his caucus too divided — and the renegades far too demanding — for that to work. That way lies another failed speakership.
Pragmatists and moderates of both parties have a tough choice to make, too. Say what you will about the members of the right-wing Freedom Caucus — and certainly there is plenty to criticize — there is no denying they are focused and engaged and willing to take heat for the things they really care about. Centrists and pragmatists must learn to be just as determined and muscular.
Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
That’s my beef with the moderates of both parties. They complain about how extremists have pushed their caucuses too far to the left or the right. But faced with opportunities to force things back into the center, they flinch, unwilling to face criticism from caucus colleagues and the partisan hordes on social media.
So here’s the deal, as President Biden would say: If moderates and pragmatists of both parties want to marginalize the extremes once and for all — if they are really serious about governing and bipartisan compromise — then they need to set aside the partisan norms by which the House has always operated, and give the speaker a different way of doing business.
Now, bear with me through a brief romp into the parliamentary weeds.
Speakers control the House through rules — not the impenetrable “Rules of the House” that are adopted at the beginning of each two-year session, but temporary “rules” that allow the House to move immediately to the next piece of legislation, setting how long the debate will be and who can offer which amendments. In recent years, as the House has become increasingly partisan, that debate has been brief and amendments few. The effect has been to shut out members of the minority party — roughly half the House — from participation in the legislative process.
Temporary rules are crafted by the House Rules Committee, most of whose members are beholden to the speaker. And because these rules provide the parliamentary mechanism by which the speaker and the majority party control the legislative agenda, members of the majority party are expected to always vote in favor of rules — whether or not they intend to vote for the underlying bill — while members of the minority are expected to vote no as told by the party brass.
That norm was set aside two weeks ago, when the right-wing zealots voted against the debt ceiling rule and several dozen moderate Democrats voted in favor. Resentful that they had been outmaneuvered, extremists took revenge on the speaker by subsequently voting against the rule by which the House would have moved on to its next order of business.
I think we can all agree it’s crazy to allow the uncompromising extremists in Congress to dictate policy to everyone else. So here’s a deal that Democratic moderates could offer McCarthy to sideline the Republican renegades. On legislation with a serious chance of passage (and these days, there aren’t many), Democrats can provide the necessary votes to pass the “rule” — but only if moderates from both parties can offer a reasonable number of germane amendments. That won’t guarantee bipartisan compromise, but it would become possible.
A similar arrangement in the Senate could restore a modicum of majority rule to that dysfunctional chamber. A gang of 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats is enough to strike a bargain to end filibusters and “holds” on bills and nominations with significant bipartisan support. That would undermine the current practice of the minority party filibustering virtually everything. And it would put an end to showboat senators log-jamming nominations, as Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) has done recently with military promotions and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) has threatened to do with Justice Department nominations.
These modest steps, easily within the power of moderates and pragmatists, would neutralize extremists, break through the partisan gridlock and jump-start bipartisan compromise to solve some of the big issues facing the country.
It is easy — too easy — to blame the zealots for hijacking the legislative process. The only reason the hijackers succeed is because party leaders and the quiescent majority of reasonable lawmakers won’t muster the courage and imagination to stop them.
