Simple answer: the Dems don’t trust McCarthy. It’s one thing for him to go on TV and blame them for things - that’s politics. But he apparently broke a lot of promises.
Three cheers for Mitch McConnell
Mitch McConnell shatters democratic norms right and left, serves monied interests by opposing any kind of campaign finance reform (even reforms he formerly backed such as full disclosure), and was one of the main architects of partisan congressional obstructionism. But he’s not a weasel. He’s says what he’s going to do, then does it (or attempts to). He does not play 11 dimensional chess: he keeps it simple and dysfunctional.
Whack-a-Mole: “My job is not to put pool noodles around hard corners for Republicans”. Man, AOC is killing it.
Sage_Rat: " Their voters need to be taught better and talked back to. That’s part of the job description."
Yes, cross-aisle collaboration is part of the founding father’s 18th century democratic theory. But here’s the thing: generally speaking, it doesn’t work. Lots of Latin American countries modeled themselves on the US constitution during the 1800s: most of them collapsed. The US system is heavy on checks and balances and light on democratic accountability. That tends to lead to McConnellism, where one party does what it can to sabotage Presidents of the opposing party.
It turns out that norms held together the US’s imperfect system. I don’t see any way of the public unscrambling that omelette by electing the right sort of candidates. Especially, when the wrong sorts of candidates are so good for television ratings and most Republicans get their news from the non-journalists at Fox News, those who say one thing to their audience and another amongst themselves.
One solution runs through ranked choice voting reforms. But there’s a market for those who want to be reassured rather than informed. How to address that is one our age’s great questions.
I’m not clear on why the whole “one member can bring a motion to vacate” thing is considered such a big deal.
As it happened, Matt Gaetz brought the motion to vacate, then 8 Republicans joined with 208 Democrats to vote McCarthy out of the speakership.
So what if the threshold to bring the motion was higher? Couldn’t those 8 Republicans and 208 Democrats come together to bring the motion to vacate, and then vote just as they did?
Those Republicans who are furious at Democrats for not crossing the aisle to vote for McCarthy, how many of them crossed the aisle to vote for Hakeem Jeffries nine months ago?
The old requirement for a motion to vacate was a majority of Republicans. So a majority of the ruling coalition.
Cite: What is a 'motion to vacate' -- a key sticking point in GOP speaker battle? - ABC News
Simplifying mightily, the threshold to credibly threaten to remove the Speaker went from 100+ rabid congresscritters to … one rabid congresscritter.
I can see how that would change things. Thanks.
Personally, I hate it when political parties are officially written into the rules of government, for reasons like this.
It’s no accident the right vilifies her every chance they get. Building a multiyear, Hillary-style backlog of bullshit may be the only way they stop her from winning the presidency in, say, 2032. Yes, I think she’s that good.
I look forward to seeing her in a presidential debate against a republican.
/hijack
I’m not sure how you got to “cross-aisle collaboration” from “the willingness to scold their own voters is part of the job description”.
In general, the framers thought of factions as being more an element of the general populace, not among the elected bodies. Cross-aisle cooperation comes in, really, only as a consideration of how much you can push back against the people. At the end of the day, if you go too far, the people will resist it and act out violently. If the popular conception is that there’s an aisle and that crossing it is bad then you need to rationally take that into account as part of your willingness to enact legislation
But, likewise, it’s also something to take into account when you’re talking about how votes are taken and how work is done. As I’ve noted before, anti-miscegenation laws were passed decades before popular approval for it passed the 50% mark. While we did have an “aisle” during that era, the people didn’t know which representatives were crossing the aisle and couldn’t punish them. The representatives were better able to enact rational law because they could go to work and ignore the “aisle”. They didn’t need to cross it, it just wasn’t terribly real inside the building walls.
You’re free to make the argument wise leaders who pushed back on factionalism and anti-populism was the downfall of Latin American nations (probably in another thread). As example, the First Republic of Bolivia was a confederacy (which approach we abandoned when we moved to the new Constitution) lead by a triumvirate - so not particularly similar to the USA. It seems to have collapsed because of interference by and dependence on Spain, exacerbated by an earthquake. Basically, they broke off before they were self-sufficient and set up a form of government that was too decentralized to be able to organize things effectively.
Granted, the US - during the revolution - operated under a similarly ineffectual confederation but, I suspect, we had greater self-sufficiency, England was less organized and committed than Spain, and George Washington was effective in getting what he needed and keeping everyone on task.
That doesn’t match my observation. I think it’s fairly clear that democratic accountability is exactly why Republicans are railroaded into the ills of democratic government that Madison warned against.
Oh, Andrew Yang. 'Nuff said.
At least we are pretty much guaranteed come November 17, the Clown Car Party (CCP) will effect a real government shutdown. And since it will occur the Friday before Thanksgiving week, it will not be a short shutdown.
Please. In the parlance of our time: a Republican government shutdown. It needs to be reinforced with clarity who is responsible and accountable for shutting down government functions and making soldiers go without a payday around the holidays.
Exactly.
It is also time to stop using the word “conservative” to describe even the most moderate parts of the R party. And definitely never use it, even with an intensifier, to describe the wacko wing. E.g. Gaetz is not an “extreme conservative”. He’s not even a “far-right conservative”. He’s a far-right reactionary and/or a traitor. Not some flavor of “conservative.”
If I could deliver one instruction to the MSM it would be to banish “conservative” from their lexicon.
There is no danger of any GOP leader getting anything passed, as far as the ridiculous laws they bring up. They are all talk till 2024 election. So even Jim Jordan will function much the same as mcCarthy. Good luck passing a budget in some 40 days, though.
Just on his own merits, separate from anything else, McCarthy is an unreliable and dishonest player.
On top of that, he served as Speaker only through an arrangement that allowed any single member to propose a motion to vacate. That means the extremists held him by the balls (personified by Matt Gaetz, a nihilistic self-serving chaos agent who is a likely Russian asset).
Dems initially cooperated to get the legislative session moving, and to let the public see exactly how this experiment in chaos would play out in practice. But that situation couldn’t last, was never going to last.
After 9 months, Gaetz decided to punish McCarthy for cooperating with Dems. In turn, Dems faced the reality that every showdown was going to turn out like this. With that being the case, Dems decided that pretty much any outcome from re-rolling the dice would be preferable to letting Matt Gaetz continue on as Shadow Speaker. I tend to believe them.
This event be a forcing function to get the “moderate” Republicans (if they exist) to start moderating, to ditch the Freedom Caucus and work with Democrats if they want to get anything done. If they don’t, they will have to explain to their voters what happened. And maybe voters don’t care, but if they don’t care, that’s something we need to find out democratically.
But at any rate, 2 things need to be clear:
- Matt Gaetz as shadow Speaker is not a workable arrangement.
- Dems aren’t obligated to help Republicans at their own expense, and that’s going to stop.
The root of the problem is gerrymandering. As long as that exists, we’ve got an intractable GOP problem. For these guys and gals from safe MAGA districts it’s just pure fun fucking around with Dems.
I think the question posed in the OP is ridiculous, and it’s ridiculous to expect that the Democratic coalition would vote for McCarthy, or any other Republican, for that matter.
That’s not how it works. When Pelosi was having trouble whipping up the votes to make her speaker because of holdouts in her own party, no one seriously expected any Republican to help her. She didn’t even consider whipping up moderate Republican votes en masse, because that’s just not done.
It’s extremely rare for anyone to vote for another party’s candidate for speaker, and in the only case I can find, it was a single rogue vote……Trafficant crossing the aisle to vote for Hastert, over twenty years ago.
Now suddenly everyone’s down with blaming the Democrats for the Republican dysfunction in the House because they didn’t take the completely unprecedented action of crossing the aisle to vote for someone that’s against everything they are in favor of, someone that’s firmly committed to defeating them in every arena.
You don’t need a strategy for not doing something that would be historically and monumentally stupid beyond belief.
The fact that anyone is even asking this question goes to show how ridiculous this insistence on advancing the doctrine of “both sides are equally bad” has become. So the Republicans LITERALLY tried to overthrow the government……well, the Democrats refused to become Republicans in order to save it, so both sides!