Last semester, I taught a health policy and politics class at Sanford School for Public Policy, Duke University. We went over US health coverage politics and policy efforts since 1988. I had great students.
I recently read my teaching evaluations. One student noted that the class was way more political science and political economy heavy than policy heavy which was a bit of a surprise.
They’re right.
I really focused on how coalitions can get built because if there is not 218-51/60-1-5, then the policy option space becomes extremely constrained. We talked a lot about different agenda control mechanisms and caucus management approaches. We highlighted inside-out and cross party coalitions in times of increasing polarization. We talked about strategies that emphasized the marginals of a coalition and then we talked about strategies that emphasized the majority of the majority. We talked about how in narrow majorities, anyone can be the decisive vote with few coordination problems while very large majorities putting together a decisive blocking faction is tough as leadership can pick off chunks of a possible blocking coalition with side deals. Not using these words, we talked about strategies for small fractions of factions can use to power bottom Congress.
Assembling 218 votes is the key job of the Speaker in the House. That is an extremely tough job for any bill that is more contentious than renaming post-offices or declaring that ice cream is yummy. It is an even tougher job when the majorities are thin.
This week is likely to go into next year’s lecture for both an illustration of the differences in skill and caucus incentives between Pelosi/Democrats and McCarthy/Republicans. More importantly, it will be going into the lecture for the importance of the vote counting institutions. The Republicans are in an omnishambling clusterfuck at the moment because of institutional rules. The electoral rule for Speaker is first past the post of the majority of votes that are present on the role call. That shapes the ongoing humiliation kink of McCarthy.
We can make a strong assumption that there are at least 218 House members with a strong preference that a Republican is Speaker rather than any Democrat. If the electoral rule was first past the post, the strong preference of 214 House members would consolidate against Jeffries and for some Republican. The problem is a coordination problem as to which Republican is to be designated. I would not be surprised if there is an institutional rule change towards some form of instant run-off voting that consolidates intense and not so intense preferences in the future.
I’m excited to have some new material to use as an illustration next year.
Anonymous At Work
The problems towards an IRV scheme is that the ~20 Suicide Pact group know that is the intent and the Democratic caucus never has these problems. So, who would pass such a thing? Kev-kev’s not going to have the votes to do anything like this ever, and would have had to bargain them away this time around had they existed.
Ken
And people said Kevin McCarthy was useless!
Another Scott
For the bomb-throwers, the system is working as designed. If you want to break the machinery of government, what better way than to get inside and throw gravel everywhere?? Just a few people here and there make all the difference in being able to implement policy, or prevent implementation…
This is why Democrats will have no more leverage in this congress than they do right now. The bomb and gravel throwers can’t do anything until they are sworn in, and that cannot happen until there is a Speaker. Eventually, there will be a Speaker (and it might happen today or tomorrow, as they all want to make their flights home). But the GQP has to do the work to figure out how to make it happen. In the past they were able to kinda finesse things, but that seems impossible now. And given their own need for 218, they’re the ones that will suffer the consequences of their broken internal systems and it will help start them down the road to losing power. But we’ll see…
Here’s hoping that road is short!
Thanks, and good luck with your teaching this year!
Cheers,
Scott.
rk
Kudos to you if you managed to teach anything with a straight face. The republican party has no policy positions other than destructive oppositon. They’re lunatics and so are their voters. How to use sober language to describe the policy positons of these clowns? I would love to sit in on your classes to hear it.
Ceci n est pas mon nym
I heard somebody compare the standoff to a hostage situation. Normally in hostage negotiations, first you want to establish what the hostage-taker wants, so you can discuss those points.
But what if the hostage-taker says “I don’t want anything, I just like taking hostages”?
Bobby Thomson
Reposting from downstairs on the now dead thread:
The obvious way out of this morass is for 11 Republicans to vote present and allow Jeffries to be elected speaker, only subject to face-saving conditions:
Republicans are still the majority party and get a majority of members on committees, to be chosen by the outgoing Republican ranking member of each.
Republicans can force Jeffries to call a vote on any subject with a plurality vote. (They really, really want the ability to impeach.)
Rules are to be made by a standing committee of Republicans appointed by Jeffries (who will not appoint any of the bomb throwers). Organically, these would be the Republicans agreeing to vote Present.
No matter who the Speaker is, there are going to be enough members (barring …… resignations) to block any Democratic priorities because the crazy caucus will vote with Republicans, and Republicans would retain the ability to put their own legislation forward. The person second in line for the Presidency would be a Democrat, not a Republican, but otherwise it’s a pretty good deal for Republicans.
Over the long run, they are going to have to expel the 20 from their caucus, knowing that in reality it won’t really make a difference in terms of votes, and also knowing the alternative is to appease them at every turn. Otherwise, there will be no end to the hostage taking. The debt ceiling brinkmanship has come home to roost and is now trained on the Republican party itself.
Geminid
@Anonymous At Work: One likely play (if it is obvious that McCarthy will be sacked) is a “safety valve” pass to Scalise. It’s possible that the 20 holdouts might be sated with McCarthy’s blood and assent to a Scalise Speakership even though in most respects he is very similar to McCarthy.
But this fight may be spinning out of control, and the clear interest of Republicans to postpone this intra-party fight long enough to elect a Speaker may be eclipsed by emotions now verging upon hatred.
jonas
@Ceci n est pas mon nym: Oh, they have demands. They’re just non-starters if you want to actually run a legislative body, as opposed to a rightwing grievance machine that sets its agenda according to whatever Tucker Carlson is ranting about that day. We’re basically back to Cole’s famous conundrum about finding common ground on a dinner date where you want Italian and she wants tire rims and anthrax.
Wapiti
@Geminid: If Scalise could accept a Stefanik leadership, he could let her try first. I wouldn’t trust the loons to not rebel against her at some point.
Scout211
The pundits who continue to assume that the Democrats should make a deal are not being serious. Republicans refuse to make a deal with the Democrats.
CaseyL
@Wapiti: Stefanik would be awful, for any number of reasons.
For one thing, she’d spend all her time trying to impeach Biden and Harris, to get the top job.
PST
@Bobby Thomson:
What about Democrats voting present and allowing McCarthy to be elected. They would own him then! The 20 dissidents, who were counting on owning him, would howl bloody murder and would want revenge against McCarthy for being a “democrat tool.” McCarthy would know that as soon as he did something intolerable to the Democrats, like refusing to release enough Republican votes to raise the debt ceiling, a motion to vacate the chair would succeed in tossing him out on his ass because neither the Democrats nor the dissidents would give him his 218 votes. But really, that might not be necessary. McCarthy would have no control and couldn’t prevent a few Republicans from blue districts from averting catastrophe. Obviously Republicans can’t get anything past the Senate and Biden, so most of the terrible things they want to do will never come to pass. All they can do is block and investigate. Not much good legislation is likely, but at least owning McCarthy could provide leverage to limit some of the worst attempts to wreck government.
Another Scott
@Scout211: Yup.
These monsters are never going to vote for a Democrat. Maybe they’d be willing to be missing for a vote, but even that is a big stretch (maybe 0.001% chance). The pundits talking about some grad “centrist” bargain are just fishing for clicks from rubes who aren’t paying attention (which, admittedly, there are lots)…
It’s cynical laziness to write such things.
Cheers,
Scott.
Omnes Omnibus
@Bobby Thomson:
Why would Jeffries accept that?
West of the Rockies
McCarthy is like a dog on a walk. He may be “leading” the walker, but he’s on a choke chain and goes only where the Freedumb Caucus inmates allow. His wife must be so proud.
West of the Rockies
@Ceci n est pas mon nym:
That was David Frum with Ari Melber.
Joe Falco
At this point, every day where McCarthy or another Republican being denied the gavel is a mixed blessing for the country. The BS a Qanon-led House will churn to attack Biden/Harris with in ’24 is their only legislative priority. I know it can’t go on forever because the business of actually running this nation is dependent on a functioning (barely!) House.
It’s good at least that Democrats haven’t shown any sign of cracking and just giving it to McCarthy. Stay united and wear those traitorous cretins down to a sniveling nub!
Poe Larity
Can’t they nominate anyone? Dennis Hastert has been out of jail for awhile now.
Gaetz was ranting on Fox last night that all these milquetoast Republicans failed the party on Benghazi, so I’m sure we’ll need more hearings there.
Geminid
@PST: I think it is best that Democrats not “own” McCarthy or any other part of this mess. They need to keep the responsibility of the majority squarely on the majority’s shoulders.
There may come a time when the Republicans can no longer continue as a majority. That could be in late summer when the issue of raising the debt ceiling becomes acute. Then the onus will be on Republicans like Don Bacon (NE) to defect and help reorganize the House. The circumstance and method would be conditioned by the House Rules, which have yet to be established.
If the defectors propose a Speaker Democratic leadership found acceptable, say former Republican Reps Tom Reed (NY) or Charlie Dent (PA), there might be a caretaker situation for the rest of this Congress. The Democrats would be an empowered minority able to pass substantive legislation within the scope of what the Senate would affirm, and otherwise bide their time until they can organize the next Congress with what I believe will be a 15-35 seat majority.
The small Independent Republican Caucus would gain credit for averting a trainwreck. Most would plan their retirements, but a few like Valadeo (CA) and Newhouse (WA) would probably have enhanced their reelection prospects. Those two are in jungle primary states and won reelection despite their votes to Impeach Trump.
The remaining Republican Caucus members would be left to stew in their own acrid juices, while the purple district members and staffers would polish up their resumes with an eye towards a new job in 2025.
Bobby Thomson
@PST: No. The worst thing Democrats could do is help Republicans out of this jam. In any way.
The Moar You Know
@Bobby Thomson: Not obvious if you’re a Republican!
If the positions were reversed, I’d be on the phone with my local Dem Congresscritter telling him that if he agreed to such an arrangement to allow a Republican speaker, my contributions for the next two years will all be going straight to his primary opponent.
Bobby Thomson
@Omnes Omnibus: Constitutional succession isn’t nothing. I agree it’s tilted toward the Republicans. I was just trying to come up with a Jeffries plan that had any chance of the barest Republican support.
Bill Arnold
@Bobby Thomson:
Until they elect a speaker, this is not actually true. If they cannot form a majority because they are actually a set of competing factions, with many factions of size one[1] , then they are not a majority.
[1] Selfishness is literally a virtue for many of them
Bobby Thomson
Rumor is McCarthy has now agreed that any single Republican member can call a vote of no confidence, which would ensure he is the weakest Speaker in history. Short of withdrawing, he doesn’t have a lot of plays left.
Bobby Thomson
@Bill Arnold: My point here is that is the condition the Republicans would demand in exchange for a Democratic Speaker.
I don’t think they are capable of collective action, though.
Miss Bianca
@Bobby Thomson: Someone in a previous thread (Baud?) suggested that the biggest problem facing McCarthy right now is that he took a submissive stance towards the hostage-takers in a party that prizes dominance above all things.
Sounds about right to me. Not that I pity the fool or anything, just noting it for the record.
Bobby Thomson
@Miss Bianca: I don’t kink shame
Geminid
@Bobby Thomson: There are also reports that McCarthy is also promising the 20 holdouts choice committee charmanships and multiple seats on the important Rules Committee. This will create a lot of resentment and hard feelings among the other 200 caucus members.
MattF
Looks to me like both the Democrats and the ‘Freedom’ caucus have decided they can do without McCarthy. But, in fact, it doesn’t matter. Is there anything McCarthy wanted to achieve besides his very own line in the historical list of Speakers? He may get that, but who cares? In any event, we’ve learned that there are managerial rankings below ‘empty suit’ that reach into realms of eerie non-existence— and McCarthy is the paradigm case.
CaseyL
@Geminid:
Good! The more resentment and hard feelings, the more chaos, and hopefully the less real damage they can do.
West of the Rockies
@MattF:
Good points. McCarthy will have no ability to inspire or cajole. He’s the pale gray pants with no one inside them.
villiageidiocy
Talk about kinks! Tho appropriate for a political blog.
Geminid
@CaseyL: The hard feelings may extend beyond the Republican Houes Caucus. This whole affair expresses divisions in the party at the local, state and national levels, the resentments will have ramifications nationally.
Similarly, the unity of the Democratic Caucus expresses the relative unity of their party in general, and probably enhances that unity.
PAM Dirac
@Bobby Thomson:
But there is no point in having Jeffies Speaker (or any Speaker for that matter) if the only thing he can do is implement the R agenda. The Rs might be divided over who should be Speaker, but they aren’t on almost all other things. They would have the unity and the votes to do what they what so why should the Ds give them any way out of their only sticking point?
Geminid
@PAM Dirac: To paraphase Hakeem Jeffries: We are ready to find common ground with the other side to work for the American people. But they cannot even find common ground with themselves.
This was great framing I thought, and should remain the focus.