I probably should have paid more attention in HS social studies class, because I feel I am missing something.
As I understand it, the election for McCarthy as Speaker was held up (15 ballots!) by the extreme right wing of the Republican party twisting his arm for concessions from the rest. Since a Republican Speaker was a foregone conclusion, couldn’t the Democrats have offered him the votes he needed in exchange for some moderate liberal concessions? Not only might it have made the platform a bit more centrist, it would have negated the power of the Tea Party to steer the GOP into the abyss.
Seems like a simple strategy, and I know I’m not smarter than the teams of experts out there, so what am I missing?
Your error is that McCarthy is very much a member of the faction opposing him, ideologically. So such an act would have been a wash at best.
Given the partisan fights between the two parties, I suspect what would have happened is that after the first Democratic vote for Candidate A, all the Republicans would immediately change their votes to Candidate B.
Remember, these were the Representatives that won their party primaries by pledging NOT to work with the other party.
I’m guessing (1) working with Democrats on anything would have been the kiss of death for him and/or (2) if McCarthy had agreed to any concessions, he’d have turned out to be lying. You don’t make deals with the devil. What am I missing?
The goal of every House member is to be re-elected in two years. If you were a Dem voter, would you vote for someone that supported McCarthy for Speaker?
There would be no way to hold McCarthy, or anyone else to a pledge. And, as already mentioned, McCarthy is not a centrist.
There was some discussion here, and elsewhere, of the Democrats getting behind a centrist, or center-right, Republican who was not currently in elective office. Not being in office would have taken away the fear of being primaried that prevents serving members from expressing centrist views.
For whatever reason, such a compromise was not attempted to the best of my knowledge. However, it’s conceivable that Hakeem Jefferies approached one or two of the very small number of plausible Republicans privately, and they declined.
Moderate liberal concessions would have cost him the Republican support he already did have, thereby undercutting the premise that he was just a few votes from the speakership.
This plan would require McCarthy to be interested in working with the Democrats, in opposition to the more radical members of the GOP. If he were interested in that, he could have reached out to the Democrats himself.
But he didn’t do that. He spent a week offering more and more concessions to the radical wing of his party, in an attempt to finally get them on board. Those are not the actions of a man looking to compromise with the Democrats.
There was also a non-negligible chance that Republican stupidity would have led a handful of them to abstain from voting or something equally stupid, and hence handed the Speakership to Jefferies. And in case that happened, they wanted to be sure their votes were in place.
The only thing which would happen is that the right wing disinformation machine would be able to claim any problems are the Dems fault.
I mean, they would anyway. But a shared power arrangement guarantees they would get some serious blows in. With nothing else being achieved.
Josh Marshall discussed the OP’s scenario and why it wouldn’t happen back on Jan 2nd. My elaboration:
-
Asymmetric polarization. Most Republican House members are in safe seats, so they fear the primary more than the general election. And GOP primary voters are unlikely to forgive a candidate who voted with the Democrats. Dem primary voters can handle bipartisanship: GOP primary voters cannot.
-
The Dems don’t like Kevin McCarthy, because he is an untrustworthy weasel. So a bipartisan solution would have to be bipartisan: “That would mean commitments against government shutdowns and debt ceiling hostage taking — at a minimum. Those asks would be dead on arrival for at least half the Republican caucus. Probably a lot more. That simply won’t happen. It’s telling that Dems might be tempted if the compromise candidate would simply rule out parliamentary terrorism. But it’s moot because that’s unforgivable in GOP politics.”
-
McCarthy bends over a lot for the Freedom Caucus, which explains why Jim Jordan and Marjorie Taylor Greene are part of the leadership. So again, little Dem enthusiasm for Big Kev.
Gifted article:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/dem-votes-wont-save-mccarthy-or-any-other-gop-speaker/sharetoken/x4kCFUGkKD5y
I would support any Dem who voted for centrist coalition control of the House, in the primaries. MfM isn’t about tribalism.
In my view the chances were negligible, and, if it happened, Jeffries would have been quickly replaced.
Let’s not forget that the main argument that the never McCarthys advanced was that McCarthy had worked across the aisle previously.
That he was willing to find common ground.
I mean, it’s bollocks – this is Mr benghazi after all – but that’s the important context of understanding why McCarthy would reject any democratic overtures in this instance, as it would give ammunition to his enemies.
And, FWIW, I think dems did the right thing letting republicans stew. For once. Just the other day dems backed a stupid anti-socialism resolution, so normal servitude has been resumed.
But at least for a minute dems were happy to just grab some popcorn and enjoy the show.