“The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their [sic] Speaker ….”
- Article I, Section 2; The Constitution of the United States of America
“I couldn’t live with myself if I did a deal with the Democrats. … If you can’t sustain being Speaker by your own majority, should you sustain it? In my question, no. So, either I’m going to win Speaker and be the leader with the majority. Otherwise, it’s not right to be Speaker.” [Emphasis Added]
- Former Republican Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy, referring to the fact that MAGA U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson sought and required votes of Democratic representatives to maintain his Speakership following a Motion to Vacate the Chair by MAGA U.S. GA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene; Politico’s Power Play Podcast, May 9, 2024.
I know: you thought we were done with Mr. McCarthy, who resigned from the House of Representatives after being deposed as Speaker by a MAGA cabal nominally calling themselves Republicans. Mr. McCarthy has been previously dismissed in these pages as an unprincipled, gutless lickspittle. However, on the off chance that any of the relatively younger readers of these pages might be misled by a point inherent in Mr. McCarthy’s above-quoted remarks, this is to point out that even aside from his lack of principles and courage – and in addition to his evident hypocrisy, since it has been widely reported that he solicited Democratic House support in his unsuccessful bid to save his Speakership — Mr. McCarthy, despite the hallowed office he once held, lacks a fundamental understanding of our Constitution and the sentiments of those who developed it.
The word, “party,” never appears in the Constitution as a description of an organization of persons with like-minded policy and political goals. While the architects of our Constitution obviously understood that persons of like political philosophies would tend to congregate, they detested political parties per se. A number of the essays in The Federalist – commonly respectively referred to as the “Papers,” written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pen name, “Publius” – excoriate political parties. Mr. Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 1, “… nothing could be more ill-judged than the intolerant spirit which has at all times characterized political parties.” The notion that a potential Speaker of the House of Representatives was only fit to serve if he (in those days, there were only “hes” 😉 ) could garner enough votes of those members who entirely shared his philosophies was a foreign, and I’m pretty confident abhorrent, concept to the drafters.
Although Mr. McCarthy apparently doesn’t know the Constitution, I will concede that in many respects his comments simply reflect the toxic partisan reality into which we have devolved. I myself would favor a constitutional change effecting an approach diametrically opposite of that which he suggested: that Article I be amended to make it a condition of becoming Speaker than a candidate receive the votes of at least 10% of the representatives who are not members of his/her own party. (Such a change, which would introduce the concept of political party into the Constitution and the practical logistics of which are clearly beyond the purview of this note, is obviously but one of Constitutional changes that readily come to mind.) But as our constitutional structure stands today, a Speaker should be proud rather than ashamed if s/he gathers votes from those of other political philosophies; it’s what the drafters intended.
On to Mr. Johnson. Do I trust him? (Note: this paragraph was written before Mr. Johnson showed up at former President Donald Trump’s “hush money” trial earlier this week. I almost cut it because the observation it contained had become so blatantly obvious, but on final reflection decided to leave it in. 🙂 )
Not at all. Although he is apparently more conciliatory in personal style than your average MAGA, I think it is undisputed that he was one of those very involved in trying to overturn what was a narrow but clear victory by President Joe Biden in 2020, and he maintains a close relationship with former President Donald Trump. Further, if the Republicans achieve a larger majority in the next House, Democrats should have no illusions that he will be sympathetic to their concerns.
On political strategy: Do I agree with House Democrats’ decision to prop up Mr. Johnson’s Speakership, rather than let it dissolve in the House MAGA maelstrom?
Unclear. While keeping the country running requires a functioning Speaker of the House – imagine the chaos if the House of Representatives couldn’t effectively function and Russia invaded a NATO country, China invaded Taiwan, or a Katrina-like hurricane hit our coast this fall – I have considered Republican Congressional dysfunction a political asset for Mr. Biden in the upcoming election. The Democrats’ support of Mr. Johnson has made the Republicans look more normal. Perhaps Democrats feared that if they allowed the failure of a Republican Speaker who is clearly more palatable to them than Mr. McCarthy, they would squander any impression they now hold with voters as being the more responsible of the two parties.
So substantively, was it the right thing to do? Yes. Do I think it was wise politically? Not so much.
Was the first half of this note incredibly geeky? No doubt. Was I pleased that it afforded one more opportunity to express some Noise about Mr. McCarthy? You bet. 😉
McCoy's Noise 