Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Can Kevin McCarthy Ever Be Trusted?
A number of representatives have criticized Kevin McCarthy, and I think they have good reason not to trust him. He took the House Republican representatives for granted. He ignored their efforts to negotiate. And it appears in some cases that he lied to them. All of these outcomes are a big deal.
At the same time, we have to reflect on our own lives, our relationship to truthfulness, and our ability to forgive and move on. I know that there are people in my own life who have done hurtful things to me or others, and I have chosen not to forgive them. I take betrayal very seriously, and I will always be skeptical, if not cynical, in reviving a relationship with someone who has let me down. I have chosen in some cases to shut them out of my life, although there are very few who have violated our relationship to this degree. Nevertheless, the damage was done and I may have no reason to try to rebuild our connections.
Ever.
But when it comes to the politics of our country and Kevin McCarthy, we might pause and reflect on the role of trust. If the Republican representatives choose to consider McCarthy making amends in order for them to vote for him as Speaker, they are entitled (from my perspective) to get certain commitments:
- I would expect McCarthy to admit his missteps and arrogance in taking the representatives for granted.
- I would expect McCarthy to be explicit about the changes he is willing to support.
- I would expect him to agree to be held accountable to apply new rules that have been negotiated.
- I would expect him to understand that breaking agreements and trust is a huge violation and will have consequences.
- I would expect him to accept that it will take a very long time to begin to earn the trust of those around him.
- I would expect him to know that any breach of agreements will be a setback to re-establishing trust.
There are probably many more requirements that the Republican representatives can demand of McCarthy, officially or unofficially. Although some would see these efforts as a way to disempower McCarthy, I believe his agreeing to them could have many benefits for him and his colleagues: the demonstration of humility and the importance of commitment and accountability to the caucus and to the country are just a couple. Just like any relationship that any of us try to mend, the violators must prove to us, over and over again, that they mean what they have said and that they will make the maximum effort to heal the damage that has been done. Every decision will be a statement of their sincerity and resolve. And of their courage. Just because we are working in the arena of politics doesn’t mean that anything goes.
McCarthy, if voted in, will need to prove every day that he is trustworthy.
Published in Culture
Expectations are a setup for disappointment, especially when applied to the Republican establishment.
If you strike a king, you must kill him. He will never forget this and those that tried to oust him. They should have stuck to their guns. Once they started they had to keep to it.
No. We cannot trust him. He clearly wasn’t a leader for the party. He should have stepped down after losing the first vote.
This doesn’t make any sense to me, Drew.
The $1.7 omnibus was passed by the Democrats, right? I admit that I haven’t looked at it closely. It appears that it passed the House 225-201, in an almost completely party-line vote, with 9 Republicans voting yes, including Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. How is that McCarthy’s fault?
I don’t see any basis for your claim of untrustworthiness. You seem unhappy that he “refused to cut any deals with the Freedom Caucus,” which appears to be about 25% of House Republicans. Why should he cut deals with them? I don’t mind the political jockeying, but I don’t see any reason why he should have to give in to the demands of the more Right-wing Republicans or face accusations of “untrustworthiness.”
As a practical matter, it looks like you’re annoyed that McCarthy was smart. Why cut deals with a group that might upset other groups in your caucus, when you might not need to? So, the guy didn’t behave like some foolish neophyte, and you seem to think that this disqualifies him from leadership. It looks like a recommendation, to me.
Then there are the “broken promises,” none of which you mention.
Finally, he held out and won — and now you say that he “damaged himself” by doing so. So what, exactly? He should have given up?
So, sorry, I see no basis whatsoever for the opinions about McCarthy. It looks like a bunch of grownups having a childish tantrum, which is becoming disturbingly common.
Please, folks, calm down and get a grip.
Possibly but I’m not sure he has the pull to get a primary in a local party. A president might. But I don’t really know. I haven’t seen too many primaries against established politicians.
McCarthy is just this week’s Emmanuel Goldstein.
I’m not talking about the recent omnibus. I’m talking about budget deals of years’ past.
NO U.
So here we are. I go back to my opening suggestion. McCarthy was chosen. Regardless of his past, he’s in. My hope is that everyone holds him accountable.
There’s a lot of name-calling these days, isn’t there. A lot of it is in the editorial pages of the WSJ, from Peggy Noonan and the editorial board.
Jerry, do you have a problem with any of this:
speaking of California. Did you see this?
He doesn’t campaign, he just uses his PAC to send a half million to some challenger. If nothing else, the incumbent has to move money from the general to fight back. It is better to be on the good list and get that half million added to your campaign.
You don’t have to go far to read the bleatings of CNN.
I think there is a type of “proxy war” against Mitch McConnell going on.
Yes. 1 and 3 are bad ideas, in my view.
2 is probably useless, and perhaps worse than useless. What’s the plan, exactly? To expose FBI wrongdoing in connection with, say, January 6 or the Russia Collusion narrative? Do you think that anything that the Republicans in Congress might do would convince the press? The coverage would be negative, overwhelmingly, I think, and to make matters worse, it will keep these stories in the public eye.
So, it turns out that I don’t like the ideas of what appears to have been a tiny fraction of the Freedom Caucus. It looks like 80-90% of the Freedom Caucus didn’t go along with the few hold-outs, suggesting to me that that handful were unreasonable, or grandstanding, or a combination of the two.
Well, that’s not true, Drew. Your first comment specifically mentioned the “recently [sic] $1.7 trillion omnibus” — “[e]specially” you wrote — and when I pointed out that McCarthy had nothing to do with it, you shift ground and deny what you just wrote.
This is so common, both on the Left and the Right. Someone has an opinion, based on a misunderstanding or false report, and when this is pointed out . . . they don’t change their opinion.
Oh, I dunno. Might merely reflect the number of real fighters we have in the party. Time will tell.
Would you say that because Alexei Navalny’s group is small, it is therefore unreasonable, grandstanding, or a combination of the two?
Late edit: I should put you on notice that my question is designed to draw you into a trap of your own making.
I think the greatest threat to America is the corruption of D.C. If exposing it only makes it harder for future corruption, then it must be exposed. If we greenlight corruption, then we are asking for more of it.
That is a bit of it. Based on the compromise, we should conclude the fight was about using available leverage to restore regular order to the budget process and meaningful oversight. Why would McCarthy be against those things?
Or, they’re the few fighting for things that the majority of us want done.
You’ve fallen into the trap of believing that the majority view is always the right view. I’m sure you don’t believe this regarding homosexual marriage. Or many other moral questions. Why suddenly become a majoritarian now?
Why would 80 to 90% of them be against those things?
Nope read it again. I mention his history (budget deals in the past) and how this obscene omnibus helps remind us of McCarthy’s history with passing budgets.
I know. I grow weary of it.
Harsh, but fair.
No, this is not true at all. If you had accurately read Drew’s paragraph, it reads in other words: in light of overspending and the 1.7, look back at his history and remember that he has a particular propensity for spending. He didn’t say McCarthy was specifically responsible for the 1.7 trillion bill passing. And he didn’t shift anything or deny what he wrote.
Welp! 87,000 new IRS agents just went bye-bye, so good on McCarthy for allowing that vote!
Excellent! If anyone is tracking these changes, I’d love to see a post on them–or here, if you prefer. Thanks, DRew
I never thought it was possible.
Wait. I think this getting ahead of things. The House passed legislation to defund the 87,000. It will not pass in the Senate and, even if it did, Biden wouldn’t sign it. It seems to me this is more bread and circuses meant to distract us from the deep and abiding corruption in DC and the built-in hostility of our weaponized government to ordinary Americans played out in agencies like the IRS.
Now, sincere question. What does it mean for the House to “control the purse strings” if withholding funding has to be approved in both chambers and by the President? Doesn’t seem like much “control” to me, but maybe I’m missing something.
Sorry to be a downer, but high expectations are a surefire way to be disappointed.
The good news? It’s hard to get anyone to work these days, so even if they find 87,000 new agents to hire, chances are they’ll mostly sit on their thumbs and collect a paycheck. It’s hard to get “good” help these days. . .
Ah! Well. Nevertheless.
This had better not be more failure theater.