Why Republicans, even now, can’t settle on a House speaker

The week after ousting their own House speaker for the first time in American history, congressional Republicans had something resembling a plan. GOP contenders hoping to succeed Kevin McCarthy would announce their candidacies, reach out to members, and make their pitch.

On Tuesday, the would-be speakers would make final presentations to the Republican conference; on Wednesday morning, members would choose a nominee by way of secret ballots; and on Wednesday afternoon, the GOP majority would put the gavel in the hands of the party’s choice, putting an end to the embarrassing chaos.

That plan has collapsed. A New York Times report summarized the “extraordinary tumult” on Capitol Hill this way:

Republican Rep. Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota told The Washington Post, “Anyone who thought that the same problems that caused the chaos last week would magically disappear today now know how wrong they were.”

When House Republicans cast their secret ballots, the final tally was close: House Majority Leader Scalise finished with 113 votes (roughly 51% of the conference) to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan’s 99 votes (roughly 45% of the conference). The remainder either didn’t vote, voted “present,” or voted for someone other than the two announced candidates.

But this tally paints a slightly misleading picture: Three non-voting delegates, who can’t participate in the floor proceedings, supported Scalise, which means he actually ended up with 110 votes (roughly 49.8% of the conference) from Republicans whose support he’ll need to get the gavel.

In theory, this should be relatively straightforward: The expectation was that GOP members would rally behind their party’s nominee and allow the House to start functioning again. In practice, as the majority leader and his allies discovered, a chunk of the House Republican conference simply wasn’t — and as of Thursday morning, isn’t — prepared to go along with their own party’s wishes.

How big is this faction? I haven’t seen a precise count, but one House Republican said there are at least 20 GOP members who are balking at Scalise’s nomination, and there have been some reports putting the number as high as 30.

For the majority leader, those tallies are brutal: Scalise can lose no more than four of his own members. Obviously, he can’t win a floor vote if the actual total is five times larger than that.

And if Scalise can’t win a floor vote, the chamber will remain in limbo — for an undetermined amount of time.

Complicating matters, it’s not altogether clear what Scalise’s opponents actually want. His intraparty detractors are not all on the same page ideologically, and their reasons for resisting his candidacy vary, all of which makes it that much more difficult to resolve the impasse.

To be sure, maybe members will wake up in a constructive mood. Maybe Scalise will slap a few backs, make a few promises, and secure the support he needs. Maybe the pieces will come together, and before day’s end, this drama will fade. It’s not likely, but it’s possible.

But for Republicans who feel as if they’re stuck in a bad dream, there’s little reason for optimism.

As for the broader circumstances, my MSNBC colleague Hayes Brown raised a point that resonated: “[W]ith the Senate and the White House in Democratic hands ... the need for compromise remains high, even as Republicans’ appetite for it has never been lower.”

Quite right. For years, GOP members have been told they don’t have to compromise. They don’t have to tolerate concessions. They don’t have to waver from their principles. All they have to do, and all they’ll be rewarded for doing, is fight — against a perceived “establishment,” against Democrats, against Republicans who sometimes cooperate with Democrats, against the “status quo,” and against the very idea that they’ll have to do something they’re not altogether comfortable doing.

McCarthy experienced the results of those anti-governing attitudes last week, and Scalise did the same on Wednesday.