If the Democrats really wanted to make trouble, they’d have gone ahead and propped up the speaker of the House. I mean Kevin McCarthy, the lightweight gladhander who let himself get ejected from the position a few weeks ago. The Republican leader was five votes short of staying in because a few of his followers had deserted him. Some pundits said the Democrats failed to rise to the occasion. If they’d put aside party and coughed up five votes for the other side’s leader, the country could’ve gone on with a speaker and a fully functioning Congress. My response, one droplet in a storm of Democratic indignation: “GOP Faction Grills, Eats Speaker: ‘Says a Lot About Dems,’ Opines Idiot.” Musing further, I decided the whole idea was stupid anyway. I figured a speaker who leaned on Dems would be a hate object for the right.
Imagine how Democrats would feel if they won the majority and then their speaker turned to Republicans to keep himself in office. If they were especially bold, they’d be saying things like “It’s the biggest F.U. to Democratic voters ever.” Then take a look at last week, specifically Thursday. “It’s the biggest F.U. to Republican voters I’ve ever seen,” declared Congressman Jim Banks. He meant the plan, drafted by a Republican, to grant the current caretaker speaker, also a Republican, some useful powers while keeping him in place through yearend. The plan was endorsed by MAGA stalwart Jim Jordan, but the terms were bipartisan enough for the top Democrats to like it, so a mighty uproar burst forth. “They’re walking Republicans off the plank… It’s a giant betrayal of Republican voters,” said Banks, a three-time Jordan voter. Because of Banks and others, his hero had to drop the plan that same day.
Now gauge the potential uproar over Kevin McCarthy and his five generous Democrats. All the MAGAs would be against him, plus a good share of his followers. He was already subject to a drumbeat when he just kept the lights on. Rely on Democratic votes and he’d have been considered a Quisling and party enemy. Every day he spent as speaker would’ve been the occasion for party civil war. There wouldn’t be a whole lot of days, but they’d be useful to mischief makers.
Rise above party, pundits told the Democrats. Step up when chaos threatens (that chaos being the House Republicans’ selection process for speaker). Some of the pundits meant it, others wanted to be obnoxious. The snide ones knew how Democrats fret about being responsible, and naturally we obliged them by arguing at length. But the pundits, pompous or snide, had no idea they were advocating gutball politics. We didn’t know they were either. All right, I figured it out, but that was a few days later.
Looking back, our discourse seems a bit removed from essentials. Turning a party against its House speaker, that would be some aortal slash there. Maybe we’re better off with a slashed and bleeding GOP, or maybe we’re better off without one party trying to destroy the other. I don’t know. But we were all chattering away and nobody realized the choice was involved.