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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 72 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Welp! 87,000 new IRS agents just went bye-bye, so good on McCarthy for allowing that vote!

    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.

    Blame McConnell for caving. Blame hissy fit voters for leaving Dems in control of the senate.

    • #61
  2. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Welp! 87,000 new IRS agents just went bye-bye, so good on McCarthy for allowing that vote!

    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.

    Ah! Well. Nevertheless.

    This had better not be more failure theater.

    If you expect that it is, you won’t be disappointed if you’re wrong. That’s my operating philosophy. 

     

    • #62
  3. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Welp! 87,000 new IRS agents just went bye-bye, so good on McCarthy for allowing that vote!

    This is a show-vote.  It only has meaning in that it hints at the priorities of the GOP.  The meaningful change is booting Adam Schiff from the Intel Committee.   

    • #63
  4. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Welp! 87,000 new IRS agents just went bye-bye, so good on McCarthy for allowing that vote!

    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.

    The problem of course is that the funding already passed with many Republicans supporting it, and now to get it reversed is a bigger problem.

    Best if it hadn’t passed to start with, but McConnell and others saw to that.

    • #64
  5. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    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. . .

    I’m pretty confident that the majority of these 87,000 jobs will be how they pay antifa.

    • #65
  6. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    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. . .

    The way I think it works is that the House writes the fiscal legislation and the Senate has an up or down vote. If that is true, then it may still get cut. If it fails in the Senate, then they may have to negotiate between the houses. The President does get a chance to veto it but it’s not a line item veto. It’s all or nothing and if it gets that far I doubt the President is going to hold it up on this issue. 

    • #66
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Manny (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    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. . .

    The way I think it works is that the House writes the fiscal legislation and the Senate has an up or down vote. If that is true, then it may still get cut. If it fails in the Senate, then they may have to negotiate between the houses. The President does get a chance to veto it but it’s not a line item veto. It’s all or nothing and if it gets that far I doubt the President is going to hold it up on this issue.

    But didn’t the budget/omnibus already pass, and so this removing-IRS-agents is a separate bill?  If the Senate doesn’t agree to THIS BILL, or if Biden vetoes THIS BILL, the budget stands as already passed, including the IRS agents.

    • #67
  8. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    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. . .

    The way I think it works is that the House writes the fiscal legislation and the Senate has an up or down vote. If that is true, then it may still get cut. If it fails in the Senate, then they may have to negotiate between the houses. The President does get a chance to veto it but it’s not a line item veto. It’s all or nothing and if it gets that far I doubt the President is going to hold it up on this issue.

    But didn’t the budget/omnibus already pass, and so this removing-IRS-agents is a separate bill? If the Senate doesn’t agree to THIS BILL, or if Biden vetoes THIS BILL, the budget stands as already passed, including the IRS agents.

    Not sure. But that was last Congress. Doesn’t the new Congress have to do their own budget?

    • #68
  9. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Manny (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    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. . .

    The way I think it works is that the House writes the fiscal legislation and the Senate has an up or down vote. If that is true, then it may still get cut. If it fails in the Senate, then they may have to negotiate between the houses. The President does get a chance to veto it but it’s not a line item veto. It’s all or nothing and if it gets that far I doubt the President is going to hold it up on this issue.

    But didn’t the budget/omnibus already pass, and so this removing-IRS-agents is a separate bill? If the Senate doesn’t agree to THIS BILL, or if Biden vetoes THIS BILL, the budget stands as already passed, including the IRS agents.

    Not sure. But that was last Congress. Doesn’t the new Congress have to do their own budget?

    Fiscal year isn’t the same as the 118th Congress.

    • #69
  10. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Manny (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    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. . .

    The way I think it works is that the House writes the fiscal legislation and the Senate has an up or down vote. If that is true, then it may still get cut. If it fails in the Senate, then they may have to negotiate between the houses. The President does get a chance to veto it but it’s not a line item veto. It’s all or nothing and if it gets that far I doubt the President is going to hold it up on this issue.

    But didn’t the budget/omnibus already pass, and so this removing-IRS-agents is a separate bill? If the Senate doesn’t agree to THIS BILL, or if Biden vetoes THIS BILL, the budget stands as already passed, including the IRS agents.

    Not sure. But that was last Congress. Doesn’t the new Congress have to do their own budget?

    No, they passed the “Omnibus” for the coming year, which is why people complained about McConnell “neutering” the incoming Republican majority in the House.

    • #70
  11. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    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. . .

    The way I think it works is that the House writes the fiscal legislation and the Senate has an up or down vote. If that is true, then it may still get cut. If it fails in the Senate, then they may have to negotiate between the houses. The President does get a chance to veto it but it’s not a line item veto. It’s all or nothing and if it gets that far I doubt the President is going to hold it up on this issue.

    But didn’t the budget/omnibus already pass, and so this removing-IRS-agents is a separate bill? If the Senate doesn’t agree to THIS BILL, or if Biden vetoes THIS BILL, the budget stands as already passed, including the IRS agents.

    Not sure. But that was last Congress. Doesn’t the new Congress have to do their own budget?

    No, they passed the “Omnibus” for the coming year, which is why people complained about McConnell “neutering” the incoming Republican majority in the House.

    Ok, that’s for 2023 budget. What about 2024 or was the omnibus a two year budget?

    • #71
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Manny (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    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. . .

    The way I think it works is that the House writes the fiscal legislation and the Senate has an up or down vote. If that is true, then it may still get cut. If it fails in the Senate, then they may have to negotiate between the houses. The President does get a chance to veto it but it’s not a line item veto. It’s all or nothing and if it gets that far I doubt the President is going to hold it up on this issue.

    But didn’t the budget/omnibus already pass, and so this removing-IRS-agents is a separate bill? If the Senate doesn’t agree to THIS BILL, or if Biden vetoes THIS BILL, the budget stands as already passed, including the IRS agents.

    Not sure. But that was last Congress. Doesn’t the new Congress have to do their own budget?

    No, they passed the “Omnibus” for the coming year, which is why people complained about McConnell “neutering” the incoming Republican majority in the House.

    Ok, that’s for 2023 budget. What about 2024 or was the omnibus a two year budget?

    They get to work on another budget next  year, when they’ll also be working on re-election.

    • #72
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.