The Speaker Follies
The limited range of outcomes is one reason why McCarthy lacks leverage. The stakes are too low for everyone else
Executive Summary
The battle over the Speakership is a product of multiple factors including
The failure of Kevin McCarthy to establish a clear, ideological base, ensuring that the stakes rapidly became about patronage and access to right-wing media.
The failure of the Republican party to win control of the United States Senate, meaning that the value of organizing a House which can be bypassed on Executive nominations diminished.
The decline, rather than rise of Donald Trump’s influence in the Republican party, which created a free-for-all for influence.
While there have been efforts to frame the conflict in terms of ideology or high principle, they are unconvincing. It is precisely because neither McCarthy nor his critics of anything they could or wish to do with the Speakership that enables them to indulge in this theater.
While there has been discussion of some sort of “coalition” government, this prospect is remote. It would not serve the interests of most Democrats, Republicans, or even clearly the Biden Administration except on terms unacceptable to the other parties.
Nor is there any serious prospect of a Speakership by Hakeem Jeffries. Democrats lack a majority of the chamber, and what Biden and Democrats most want to avoid is a government shutdown, maintain aid to Ukraine and avoid a debt default. A Speaker elected by 212/235 members would not be able to deliver on any of those, while leaving Democrats responsible for dysfunction.
Republicans command a majority, and ultimately they will have to organize the House with that majority. While in different circumstances it might conceivable that an overwhelming majority of the Republican “majority”, say 200 might accept the support of a few dozen Democrats on procedural matters, it would have to be a Republican majority with “confidence and supply” from a few Democrats, not the reverse. Any Republican congressman contemplating working with Jefferies before or after(if it somehow occurred through a rules change to plurality voting) would be ending their career as clearly as Liz Cheney did.
It is less clear that Kevin McCarthy will secure the Speakership. His problem is that his value now exists far more as a point of principle - not allowing the choice of the caucus to be overturned by a minority - especially in exchange for patronage concessions - than due to any loyalty to him or belief he is an asset. Any concessions on Committee assignments , especially when it comes to a perch like appropriations would eliminate much of his value to the caucus.
This means Kevin McCarthy is relatively secure as long as he refuses to negotiate, However, any effort to do so, as has taken place over the past day, risks creating a bidding war in which his supporters may feel they will get a better deal by working directly with the holdouts rather than allowing McCarthy to trade away the interests of the caucus at large.
The lack of a clear line of succession is a problem. There are doubts about Steve Scalise’s fitness as the “face” of a GOP majority in the 2020s as a traditional southern conservative politician. At the same time the unity of the leadership team would be vital, especially if McCarthy were to be dropped. In fact, dropping McCarthy would make maintaining the unity of the remainder of his leadership team even more important to all concerned. What that means is that agreement on a compromise pick would be a prerequisite for dropping McCarthy unless he forced the issue by making concessions viewed as catastrophic.
Introduction
The current effort of the US House of Representatives to elect a Speaker has transfixed the political audience not just in the United States, but across the globe. That this audience is overwhelmingly online, and a small minority of the wider public, is perhaps part of the reason the situation arose in the first place. Very little is actually at stake when it comes to policy. The impacts will almost entirely effect the fate of individuals, which by definition makes it inside baseball.
There are of course efforts on the part of sections of the media, especially on the Democratic side, to somehow make this about “democracy”, the future direction of the country, or to suggest it somehow should or could end with the Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker. When convenient, some Republicans have echoed this sort of rhetoric, with McCarthy supporters such as Rep Dan Crenshaw denouncing the holdouts as enemies of democracy, the holdouts, unable to articulate their own ideological goals, seizing on the rhetoric of their critics, and a host of grifters floating the idea of coalition.
In reality, this is nonsense. The House cannot be run without a majority, and to elect a minority Speaker who is unable to command a majority in floor votes would be to throw the chamber into anarchy until they were replaced with one who could. As Republicans hold a majority of seats, that would almost by definition be a Republican who could command the Republican caucus. Democrats know this. Republicans know this. McCarthy knows this. His opponents do as well.
What does that mean for the current dynamics? Well there are five options, of which only two are viable.
McCarthy continues holding votes until he wins
McCarthy makes a deal with his critics
McCarthy makes a deal with Democrats
The threshold is lowered to a plurality
McCarthy Steps down
McCarthy continues holding votes until he wins
This appears to be the default strategy for McCarthy. It requires relatively little on his part, other than the ability to hold together his own support base. There are assets here
He starts as the choice of the overwhelming majority of the caucus. The principle being defended, as Rep. Crenshaw noted, is not McCarthy as an individual but rather the democratic choice of the Republican caucus which voted to nominate him 188-31. If 20 members can hold 200 hostage, then it makes a mockery of the entire caucus system as any minority greater than the margin between the parties can make demands and shut down the operations of the chamber if they are not met.
This argument is greatly strengthened by the behavior and nature of his opposition. If they had personal objections to McCarthy alone and a viable alternative candidate, then it could be written up as a one-off. But they have moved between candidates regularly.
Secondly, they have made a serious error in conflating ideological demands with personal aggrandizement. By offering to compromise their ideological principles and personal objections for McCarthy in exchange for Committee Chairmanships, they have in effect raised the stakes for every other Republican. It is one thing to give into ideological or policy-blackmail. Another to enable any 20 congressman to dictate Committee assignments. After all, there are 11 groups of that size within the GOP caucus.
The problem is that history is not on McCarthy’s side. In virtually all previous cases where majority or supermajority rather than plurality requirements were needed for election in American history, whether it was Speakership votes, Senate elections before the 17th Amendment, or the Democratic nomination during the era of the “two-thirds” rule, when the support of two-thirds of delegates was required for the nomination, the position of a frontrunner without the neccisary support was precarious indeed. The primary reason to support a frontrunner was the “bandwagon” effect, a desire to get onboard the winning train, but once it was demonstrated that the frontrunner could not win, and definitely could not without a deal with their opponents, the incentive of opponents was to maximize their leverage. If they could not swing the outcome individually, odds were they would gain more by making a deal with whatever “dark horse” emerged than by defecting to someone who was going to lose in the end. The same was true of their own supporters, who no longer had a reason to expect much.
This was particularly pronounced in cases where opposition was regional or ideological. The ability of a perceived anti-Southern candidate to pick up Southern support or vice versa diminished progressively after each ballot in the 19th century as the struggle became defined in sectional terms. The problem for McCarthy is that the framing of the struggle has become “Conservative v. Moderate” regardless of reality and there are proportionally more Republican voters who identify with the former than the latter. A recent poll found among Republicans that 48% felt McCarthy should be elected while 29% opposed. This might seem like superficially good news but in percentage terms, McCarthy is currently winning the caucus 90%-10%. It is unclear that he has the support to pressure his opponents. On the contrary, there is some evidence sentiment is producing the reverse outcome. Republican voters in the districts of loyalists are blaming McCarthy for the gridlock.
That sentiment is causing hesitation among the constituency McCarthy most needs, namely Talk Radio and online “influencers” who can influence his opponents in ways lobbyists can’t. Their sympathies clearly are against the rebels, but their tone has been influenced by the division within their audience, as well as to the extent issues like Ukraine have entered the branding debate.
In short - McCarthy has several factors going for him, but it is unclear if time is on his side. There is some evidence he is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of Republican activists, and especially the audience of vitally important rightwing media.
McCarthy makes a deal with his critics
Superficially this is the ideal option. It reunites the caucus, which is in the interest of all Republicans, and it allows for the organization of a “functional House” which is a win for everyone. Even the Biden Administration and Democrats who can both use the concessions as “proof” that the GOP is in the grip of “extremists” while also having someone it can negotiate with, and most importantly pin responsibility on, for budgetary issues.
As is often the case, the problem arises in the details. McCarthy’s support, as noted, in large part derives from a defense not of McCarthy but of McCarthy as the choice of the caucus. Many of the 200-odd McCarthy supporters are fighting to uphold the authority of the caucus, not to allow Kevin McCarthy to add “Speaker of the House” to his Linkedin profile. Consequently, any concessions he makes which undermine the authority of the caucus, and overlap between those any concessions to those in rebellion against the caucus is an almost perfect circle, undermines any reason to stand by McCarthy.
This is particularly true of concessions regarding patronage. Policy concessions are meaningless. Almost every GOP rep believes that things like a debt limit increase and government funding bill will pass eventually, and probably should. To do otherwise would be to risk an uncertain conflict with unpredictable implications for the 2024 election when the nominee is not known. What is known is such a nominee, whoever they are, would react poorly to moves which might well cost them the 2024 election. So the implications of such concessions in practice will be nearly nonexistent.
On the other-hand, the risks of trading senior perks, such as the Appropriations sub-committee chairmanship that Maryland conservative Andy Harris is demanding are a direct incentivization to further blackmail. If any group of congressman can demand perches by threatening to revolt over being on the losing side of caucus elections then the house will become ungovernable and only those willing to engage in this sort of behavior will end up with key posts.
In short: concessions on patronage poses a mortal threat to the Republican caucus and every Republican member of congress and they are likely to react extremally poorly.
In the event McCarthy were to make concessions which the caucus saw as threatening their interests, questions would arise as to whether his candidacy posed a liability. At this point, the symbolic value of Kevin McCarthy would become an issue. Because of the absence of deeper ideological demands behind the revolt, McCarthy himself has been symbolic of the complaints of grassroots conservative opinion. In turn, because the rebels don’t have clearly articulated conditions which would allow them to claim a “win” or a “loss” other than Kevin McCarthy not being elected speaker, they will by definition have to demand a much higher price to support McCarthy than anyone else, even someone with the exact same record and positions. At that point, the majority of the caucus and McCarthy’s own leadership team would have to decide whether conceding on the symbolic issue of Kevin McCarthy not being speaker, damaging though it would be, might be less so than conceding on committee assignments.
McCarthy therefore faces quandaries with negotiations. They by definition weaken his position with his own supporters. And his opponents are “winning” the PR battle they care about.
McCarthy makes a deal with Democrats
Almost from the start of this process there has been talk of coalition government, or even trollish bragging from Democrats, who have managed to keep their caucus together, that Republicans should support Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker as he has come first in every ballot. This is trolling and everyone knows it.
The experience of Liz Cheney as well as all but two of the Republicans who voted for the second impeachment of Donald Trump stands as a warning as to what would happen to Republicans who are perceived as aligning with Democrats on partisan matters. And nothing is more partisan than the organization of the House.
Hakeem Jeffries, a down-the-line urban liberal is not a viable candidate for a single Republican cross-over vote. Had Democrats put forward someone like Texas Rep Henry Cuellar, a pro-life, conservative, latino, they might well have had more success, but the idea of Jeffries getting the support of every Democrat in a scenario where the Democrats had a one or two seat majority, rather than where it was symbolic is a long-shot. The idea of any Republican backing him is laughable,
When coalitions have taken place at the state level, they have generally been in one-party states. In Massachusetts in 1996 and Ohio just this week, Republicans and Democrats respectively concluded they had no prospect of ever wielding influence through elections. Their choice was total irrelevance, or cutting a deal with a faction of the majority to make their jobs slightly more pleasant when it came to office space, staff allowances and other procedural matters. It was precisely because Massachusetts wouldn’t dare assert any right to dictate policy or legislative priorities to a Democratic speaker which allowed them to vote for one, combining with 56/121 Democrats to elect Tom Finneran in 1996. The same was true in Ohio where all 32 Democrats joined with 22/67 Republicans to elect a Republican speaker. That speaker may have received a majority of votes from Democrats but he is still a Republican and made clear he would pursue Republican priorities whether on abortion or other issues.
Democrats have not accepted the idea that the House is Republican which would be the prerequisite to serious talks. That would mean accepting that Republicans, by winning more seats, won the “right” to investigate Hunter Biden, pass or block what legislation they chose, and most importantly, determine their own personnel assignments. Demands on all of these matters have been a starting point for any talks.
All of this ignores that the only viable negotiating partner for Democrats would be Kevin McCarthy. Fantasies about backing a “compromise candidate” ignore that the principle of the Republican caucus picking the Republican candidate for Speaker is just as threatened by Democrats trying to chose their own Republican as by whatever it is that the 20 rebels are doing. Any Republican congressman who engaged in talks with Democrats without the consent of the elected leadership would be behaving no differently than Matt Gaetz or Lauren Boebert.
Consequently, only Kevin McCarthy is empowered to negotiate with Democrats, and he would only be empowered to do so on behalf of the caucus. Efforts to exceed his authority would end in the same way Theresa May’s talks with Jeremy Corbyn in the UK did, namely with a mass revolt.
McCarthy would also face a major backlash for accepting Democratic support. That support then would have be conditional on concessions which would not conflict with the ability of the Speaker to demonstrate it was a Republican speakership which would mean confronting the Biden Administration.
This does not mean there isn’t a deal which could be done. But it would involve concessions involving staff funding and other procedural matters. As it is hard to see Democrats voting for a Speaker who would threaten to shutdown the government and possibly impeach Biden’s cabinet secretaries, then the simple truth is it does not make sense.
It does not make sense because Democrats do not accept a Republican House majority as inevitable. Furthermore, with control of the Senate and White House, they are not resigned to a pro forma existence. Many hope to someday be in a majority, or, failing that to run for Senate or even President in which case they will want to be uncompromised. That is a far cry from a Democrat in Ohio who knows they cannot win statewide office, nor a majority in either house of the legislature so their whole career will be spent in the minority.
The only reason for a “deal” here is to avoid the complications which would arise from the plurality option.
The threshold is lowered to a plurality
There has been extensive discussion about moving the threshold for electing a speaker from a majority to a plurality. This has come both from Democrats who are quick to point out(again trolling) that Jeffries has led on every ballot, but also been floated by some McCarthy supporters as a blackmail option, one which would force rebels to either vote for McCarthy or risk Jeffries winning.
The risks here are largely co-ordinational and strategic. Jeffries winning, which could happen either because the rebels fail to coordinate or make a calculation it would be to their advantage, would in fact be a disaster for the house and actually for the Democrats.
As much as Democrats online salivate over the prospect of electing a Speaker, the fact is that there is a difference between a electing a Speaker with a plurality and electing one opposed by a majority. ALL Republicans would on day one oppose Jeffries. Not a single one has the slightest incentive or personal reason to support him. He has no personal ties across the aisle, he is ideologically repugnant, and Republicans do hold a majority. Democrats installing him without a majority would be seen as a “coup” and an affront to the November 2022 election results and he could expect zero GOP votes on anything. This would rapidly become a problem as
Jeffries would need to pass an organizing resolution by the 13th of January in order for Committee staff to be paid
He would need to be able to pass a government funding bill to avoid a shut-down or to raise the debt limit
In fact, Jeffries serving temporarily would do more than anything else to unite Republicans. It would allow them to unite in opposition to things like Ukraine aid or government funding on principle, by saying they would block everything until Jeffries resigned. It would also open the way for them to unite behind whoever succeeded McCarthy who would have no choice but to resign.
Because of all of the above, the move is risky for McCarthy and the Democrats. Because Jeffries could not govern, Democrats will face a dilemma if asked to support a rules change. For the same reason, it is far from certain the Freedom Caucus would fall into line when refusing to do so would inflict damage on the Democrats, force McCarthy to resign, increase their leverage going forward, and still result in a new GOP speaker within a few weeks at most.
Democrats may be trapped by their rhetoric into allowing it to pass if McCarthy proposes it, but it is a nuclear option for everyone.
McCarthy Dropping Out
The probability of this outcome are high because it is the end point of so many others
If McCarthy continues the losing votes too long, sentiment among right-wing media influencers may shift to such a degree that he comes under pressure from within the caucus to step aside.
If McCarthy makes patronage concessions to the rebels he risks undermining his own support within the caucus as he will no longer be defending the principle of its authority.
If McCarthy opens negotiations with the Democrats, he risks identifying himself as the “RINO” candidate with that tag sticking to anyone who has supported him. At that point they would likely have to prove their GOP bona fides by turning against him.
If McCarthy moves to a plurality vote he might trigger the same revolt as described. If he does and loses he would immediately have to step down.
For all of these reasons there is a decent number of scenarios which end with him dropping out. The problem, of course, is they all involve the cost-benefit analysis shifting.
In that case there is the issue of a successor.
Steve Scalise is next-in-line but enthusiases no one. For the rebels, being second-in-line explains that. But even for members of the caucus, there are doubts that Scalise, a hard-right suburban New Orleans rep is a wise face for a party which has been going for younger and more diverse imagery. It is easy to see him as a liability as the face of the party in the media and with donors.
With Boehner and Ryan there is already a precedent of skipping the next-in-line for a more colorful face. Byron Donalds brief campaign likely crystalized these thoughts. While it went nowhere, it must have caused many in the leadership to wonder whether a young, media-savvy congressman who could have been sold as the first-black Speaker would have been the worst outcome IF he could be trusted to act as a puppet for the existing leadership team. In such a case he would find media, and more importantly donor relations easy.
Donalds did a lot of damage to McCarthy. Not for his own sake, but in changing the contours of discussions about a successor. And highlighting how few Republicans actually believe their current leader is an asset.