By
Soon after Kevin McCarthy was ousted as House speaker, the chamber’s top Democrat, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, issued a brief written statement. “This is a solemn moment for the country and for the House of Representatives,” the New York congressman said. “The Constitution gifted us a government of the people, by the people and for the people. House Democrats will continue to put people over politics and work together in a bipartisan way to make life better for everyday Americans.”
One of Jeffries’ fellow New Yorkers, Republican Rep. Mike Lawler, was unimpressed. “People over politics? Get real,” he replied online, adding, “You could have put the country first by refusing to partake in this fraud.”
It was a flawed response. The GOP effort to oust McCarthy wasn’t a “fraud” — it was outlined in the rules package that Republicans wrote and which Lawler voted to approve — and the idea that 212 House Democrats should’ve simply “refused to partake” in their own chamber's process is difficult to take seriously.
McCarthy spent the year offending, alienating, and ignoring the Democratic conference. Arguing that Democratic members failed to “put the country first” by voting their conscience, and opposing a failed and ineffective congressional leader, is unpersuasive.
The exchange was nevertheless interesting, however, because it raised some related questions. To hear Lawler tell it, Democrats interested in putting “people over politics” and putting “the country first” could’ve simply held their noses and supported a speaker they disagreed with. This would’ve prevented chaos on Capitol Hill, and offered a degree of stability in a Congress that needs it.
But the inverse is also true: Republicans interested in putting “people over politics” and putting “the country first” could also support a speaker they disagree with — someone like Hakeem Jeffries. This also would prevent chaos on Capitol Hill, and offer a degree of stability in a Congress that needs it.
For all of the unnecessary chatter in GOP circles this week about why Democrats are to blame for Republicans’ own exercise, the fact remains that there’s little practical difference between asking Democrats to support McCarthy and asking Republicans to support Jeffries.
The National Republican Congressional Committee labeled House Democrats “the Chaos Caucus” yesterday for voting against McCarthy earlier in the week. But there’s nothing stopping Republicans — really, just a handful of them — from ending the “chaos” and helping elect a Democratic speaker.
If that’s a bridge too far — and I think we all know that it is — those same Republicans could consider a different kind of creative solution. The New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg wrote in her latest column:
However the race shakes out, we can be fairly sure that the House will be a mess for the foreseeable future. It’s hard to see how, amid all this turmoil, the chamber passes more Ukraine aid, a red line for some on the right, or keeps the government open when the funding bill that led to McCarthy’s overthrow runs out shortly before Thanksgiving. That is, unless a handful of so-called moderate Republicans decide to show a bit of statesmanship and team up with Democrats to elect a unity candidate.
Throughout the current Congress, there’s been intense focus on the House’s far-right extremists — what they’ll tolerate, what they’re demanding, how they’ll punish GOP leaders who disappoint them, how they’ll exploit their power and leverage, etc. But there are 18 House Republicans from districts that supported the Democratic presidential ticket in 2020, and they have power and leverage, too.
Or at least they would if they tried to leverage their numbers with some demands of their own.
The GOP members from competitive districts could very easily reach out to Democratic leaders about a post-McCarthy agreement that would lead to a mainstream Republican speaker.
Indeed, Jeffries has effectively rolled out the welcome mat. In a newly published Washington Post op-ed, the House minority leader invites “more traditional Republicans” to “enter into a bipartisan governing coalition” that would “end the chaos.” Jeffries concluded:
House Democrats remain committed to a bipartisan path forward, as we have repeatedly demonstrated throughout this Congress by providing a majority of the votes to prevent a government shutdown this month and avoid a catastrophic default on America’s debt in June. At this point, we simply need Republican partners willing to break with MAGA extremism, reform the highly partisan House rules that were adopted at the beginning of this Congress and join us in finding common ground for the people.
Is it realistic to think there could be some kind of bipartisan deal? Probably not. But members of the GOP majority have some creative options, and Democratic leaders appear to be waiting by the phone.