Tonight, we turn our lonely eyes to the first Democratic
debate. But before that, there is a
brief opportunity to consider just what will occur when Congress returns from a
break, and John Boehner leads his fractious army back to Washington.
First order of business, we need a new Speaker. We don’t have one because a) Boehner was sick
and tired of being sick and tired, and b) his first choice, House Majority
Leader Kevin McCarthy, has withdrawn because of an acute case of foot in mouth
disease, a hint of personal scandal, and c) a new skunk at the party—the House
Freedom Caucus, a determined band of roughly 40 Members who expect to be the
new Politburo come this November.
Who and what is the House Freedom Caucus? Why haven’t we heard more about them? They
are newly formed (January) and they are committed to a mission: “The House Freedom Caucus
gives a voice to countless Americans who feel that Washington does not
represent them. We support open, accountable and limited government, the
Constitution and the rule of law, and policies that promote the liberty,
safety, and prosperity of all Americans.”
Rather noble sounding—so noble
that not everyone will admit to being a member, and two have just resigned, so
when I say “roughly forty” I mean, “roughly.” But these are, after all is said and done, the
conservative conservatives—so conservative that they had to split off from the
House Republican Study Group, which is the more conservative group of
Republicans in the House.
What do they want? The short
answer is the power to pick the next Speaker, and set the nation’s agenda. These are not people with modest
ambitions—they truly believe their mission statement about the countless
unrepresented they speak for.
They think they have the numbers
to do it. Forty is not only more than 12,
which is the number of Republicans who refused to vote for John Boehner in
early 2013 (don’t faint, they didn’t choose Nancy Pelosi). But more importantly, it leaves the GOP,
currently with 247 Members, 12 votes short of the 218 needed to have a majority
vote for Speaker.
In fairness to the Freedom
Caucus, they are frustrated to distraction.
It’s been ten months since they were sworn in, and the GOP hasn’t
accomplished all that much in turning back Obama’s agenda. They have run into a surprisingly resilient
wall—one created largely by the Founders, and reinforced with decades of
procedure.
You start with the peculiar dynamics of the Senate and its
fundamental differences from the House. The
Senate is supposed to act with careful deliberation—in James Madison’s words “to
consist in its proceedings with more coolness, with more system and with more
wisdom, than the popular branch." Firebrands elected every two years might
be radical, but George Washington told Jefferson “we
pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."
Senate rules include unlimited debate (which can technically
be limited by a cloture motion) unlimited amendments, and the Senatorial “hold”
which allows even a single Senator to object to an appointment or piece of
legislation.
The structure is designed to force compromise, if people use
it in good faith. Ideology counts, but relationships
matter. One of the most unusual long-term
friendships was between Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, and showed you how the
Senate could work—rather than seeing each other as the enemy for all things,
they cooperated on legislation they had common interests in and took opposite
sides when they didn’t.
There are other factors in the Senate that have a tendency
to moderate legislation. Roughly
half the states have at least one Senatorial seat that could flip over a few
election cycles. Wrong year, wrong
candidate, and even a safe seat (like Kennedy’s seat lost to Scott Brown or
Indiana’s Richard Lugar’s seat lost to Joe Donnelly) can be at risk. Lose a seat, and it’s gone for six
years. Just as in the House, where a
successful politician is an acute counter of noses, in the Senate, you also
have to know, and play to, your audience—and you can’t gerrymander a
state. This creates two opposing forces
within the Senate. In the hardline
states (Utah, or Oklahoma) the same primary forces that seek purity send the
Ted Cruz types into battle. But
elsewhere, Senators have to watch their backs, which is why you see Lisa
Murkowski of Alaska occasionally voting with Democrats and Joe Manchin of West
Virginia siding with Republicans. And
you see Senate leadership in both parties not asking them to take one for the
team—the seats are far more important than any particular piece of legislation.
But the House is a different animal altogether. The individual Member has essentially no
power under the House rules to start or stop anything. Procedurally, the authority is at the
Committee and leadership level. So, the Freedom Caucus wants a commitment from
the incoming Speaker for “regular order” which, to their way of thinking, is a
closer adherence to Robert’s Rules of Order—and which would allow any Member to
able to introduce a Bill or Amendment, and get it called up rather than buried
by leadership. For Democratic-sponsored
legislation, they expect the Hastert Rule to be applied. And, they want far greater access to the Republican
Steering Committee, which hands out committee assignments and
chairmanships.
The hard-liners in the House also see a different reality
when it comes to actual voting on legislation. To their way of thinking, the
respective size of the delegations is almost the only determiner, and
discipline should be applied to achieve the maximum result. In this, they are probably on the cutting
edge. The number of swing voting Members
is declining as more sophisticated gerrymandering and the disproportionate
impact of large private donations draw more Districts into ideological
silos. Get a solidly Republican
District, and the greatest danger is losing the nomination, not losing the
general election after you have the nomination.
That is the reality they see, not beyond it. They don’t understand the practical—that
there are two chambers in Congress and three branches of government. Unlimited numbers of amendments in the House can
kill bills that are already big wins for conservatives, by including additional
provisions that make them anathema to anyone not hard right. And forcing votes can be even worse, by
putting everyone on record. And, to what
end, if you don’t have a President willing to go along or a veto-proof
majority?
They scoff at this. This
logic is old man’s logic, the logic of the Establishment. It doesn’t comport with the reality they
think they see at home, doesn’t match up with the calls they are getting from
their constituents and their contributors.
They see it all as possible, so long as there is the will to do it. Why not be ultra-conservative, when you have
the votes? Why shouldn’t McConnell use
his majority to deliver the votes on anything that passes out of the House,
without Amendment or even discussion?
Finally, if Republicans just stick together, and refuse Mr. Obama
everything, why shouldn’t he bow to the will of the people?
Of course, this all starts with the Speaker. Paul Ryan is demurring (for now, while I expect
he quietly negotiates terms) and other eager conservatives have had their hands
up, all ready to sacrifice themselves for the good of the country. Newt said he had a “moral obligation” if
asked.
But, I find myself intrigued by Arkansas Senator Tom
Cotton’s suggestion—Dick Cheney.
Dick Cheney?
Ultra-conservative? Check. Ruthless?
Check? Experienced in being in line for the Presidency? Double-check.
Dick Cheney and the Freedom Forty. Let it
linger on the tongue like a fine vintage of castor oil.
October 13th, 2015
Michael Liss (Moderate
Moderator)
Please join us on Twitter.
