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.
Why the Fracas in the House Is Good News, Not Bad News
Writing over at National Review, Brother Kevin Williamson gets it just exactly right, yet again. An excerpt:
What really has the salon set shaking its head is that the Republican party, which has within it a steep disagreement about tactics, priorities, pace, and style, has decided to settle some of those questions through an authentic democratic process. There is, apparently, going to be a real race for the speaker’s gavel, rather than a negotiated settlement among party leaders organized around the question of whose turn it is. A real democratic fight instead of a backroom party-machine process — that is what CNN calls a House in chaos.
Well, bring on the chaos.
A clean, public and important fight over matters of central importance to the future of the nation.
Bring it on indeed.
Published in Politics
If he cared about a smoother transition, he would have been caring about smoother transitions of his duties over the past several years. It’s one of the complaints Amash made against him.
Sure, I agree. But Ryan didn’t say it, and he can’t openly reverse past leadership without sending a different kind of bad message.
It’s only “surrender” if you think they’re going to get this President to sign anything meaningful over the next 12 months by any strategy.
I know this is all we have said since 2010. It’s infuriating. But we need the Presidency. And all these political maneuvers matter only as they set us up for that — well or badly. If Clinton (or Biden) wins, it won’t matter how effective Congress was in 2016. With a conservative president, we literally can repeal Obamacare.
And you know what? If passing a clean debt ceiling vote and keeping Congress out of the headlines makes that more likely, I’m not going to fault a single conservative who wants to do that.
Politico didn’t influence my view. I barely skimmed it.
Some of it seems quite reasonable to me — the stuff Reid Ribble is talking about. But some of it looks like a significant change to the way the House operates. And every conservative instinct in me rebels against making significant institutional changes in this kind of environment for these reasons — in order to win votes for a leadership election. Pick a good leader and then debate rules changes in the caucus. It’s the kind of thing that needs a majority consensus, not something a minority group should be negotiating with potential candidates.
And some of it, having followed Washington politics as closely as is good for me the past few years (with a few gaps thanks to life), clearly isn’t just about rules.
Some of these have frequently voted against the majority conservative position because it doesn’t go far enough (against the budget, for example). That might seem principled, but in reality — once you’ve had it out among yourselves, worked through the amendment process, and the final bill on the table has the majority of the majority and is the most conservative you’re going to get through — voting “no” is a vote with the Democrats and for the status quo — or worse.
(cont.)
Now I’m not saying you never, ever do that. If, in some nightmare, I were to find myself in Washington no doubt I someday would on principle too. But I’d do it with an eye to whether the real-world consequences of voting “no” were worse than having my name associated with that bill… and if I went against it anyway I’d take my lumps without complaining, because of course leadership doesn’t like that and pushes back hard. That’s just basic politics.
It used to be, I understand, that earmarks played a role, and now it’s about committees. And they want protected from punishment when they vote against leadership. Understandable.
But at the same time, they want a debt ceiling increase only with entitlement reform. And they want the speaker to commit to only bring a bill that has the majority of the majority — but they want protection if they vote against it. But if they vote against it that bill won’t reach 218. So the bill dies.
For ESEA reauthorization that just means more Dept of Ed rule-by-mandate and Common Core. But on the debt ceiling it creates a situation the rest of the caucus won’t accept.
My take is some of it is reasonable and negotiable — but I don’t think much of how they’re going about it. They need to build consensus, not try as a small minority to hold a veto over leadership.
That’s called elections. Let’s win one.
If John Boehner ran the House according to Rep. Daniel Webster’s reform principles, we might not be witnessing this fight, but we’d still have an ineffective Speaker.
Fights about process and policy are for insiders and ideologues. They’re not unimportant, but they are less important than the opportunity cost of having a weak communicator as Speaker.
In the Age of Media, the Speaker of the House is first and foremost a spokesman, as befits the highest ranking elected official outside the White House. In a divided government, the Speaker is positioned to be the primary voice of the opposition.
What the Speaker can actually do legislatively is limited by the Senate and the President. What the Speaker can say is far more important.
John Boehner was an inept public communicator. To the average voter, he was a guy with a bad tan who cried a lot, someone who responded to important questions by mumbling on about process.
I would suggest that the next Speaker of the House listen to Margaret Thatcher’s The Path to Power and The Downing Street Years. Note how often Lady Thatcher emphasizes the words in her speeches. Saying the right thing at the right time is how you go from being a back bencher to a world class statesman.
True, but at least one big issue underlying the process fight is tied to a key divide that reaches outside Congress. It reaches into the presidential race, and will do so even more bitterly if and when a congressman becomes a frontrunner. (That’s why I wanted a governor, but the remaining options are troubling.)
And that’s why — in large part — Paul Ryan is holding back: because becoming the key figure in that fight would very likely undermine his ability to keep a conservative consensus on the things he’s worked for and fought for.
Otherwise, I agree — and it’s probably a case for Ryan.
If Republicans don’t run on it now, in 2015, they are not going to be able to come out of the wordwork and accomplish it in 2016 or 2017. It would be a dirty, nasty thing if they could, but they can’t.
Elections are relatively unimportant to this process. Sure, they have a role, but that’s mostly just to formalize things.
Oh, run on it, by all means! Put it on the President’s desk, or hold the senators who block it accountable.
But you’re not going to be able to force the Democrats to vote for it, or Obama to sign it (if you dispensed with the filibuster) via debt-ceiling or shutdown brinkmanship.
That’s what never seems to be acknowledged: that these strategies don’t actually do anything in themselves. They just set up a game of chicken to see who can stare down the other. And since Obama isn’t up for re-election, even if Republicans won the media war — which we all know they won’t — he can stare them down indefinitely.
But I absolutely agree that we need an Obamacare repeal bill through Congress, to prove that it is something that could credibly happen. (And while I realize the replacement part probably can’t be all we might wish — I hope no conservative will claim he’s being principled by voting against Obamacare repeal because he doesn’t like the replacement.)