Finally the clouds departed for a pretty Saturday afternoon.
The hotly debated foreign aid emergency supplemental passed today, despite the weeks of infighting for and by House Republicans. Of course the Ukrainians are most immediately relieved that military assistance will increase (within hours, I expect, as I doubt the administration was waiting until the final moment to prep the materials). Assistance for Israel and Taiwan are also noteworthy investments in governments we believe offer best options for protecting our interests.
Whatever you think of Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana, he deserves credit for relying on Democratic support to pass a bill that much of his Party hates. He kept his eye on the prize. He likely will lose his job over this vote, especially because of that very Ukraine aid. He has said it was the right thing to do so he persevered to deliver the House as Chuck Shumer brought sufficient votes to pass it in the Senate.
The far bigger message from today is that Congress can pass a controversial bill.
Think about that. And we think we are the most powerful country in the world.
I imagine allies, opponents and average citizens abroad truly could not believe their eyes (or luck) as the dysfunction persisted for months within the House of Representatives. Other systems simply don’t tolerate the arcane system of government we have. In a parliamentary system, one may hang on (Netanyahu for example) as support ebbs but the particular coalition members must scramble to assure coalition-maintenance (give and take with partners, even if they despise each other personally) to assure they votes to maintain office. Lose the majority, lose the position in a far more dynamic political system.
The bigger the majority, the better the chance of some backbenchers engaging in antics in a parliamentary system. Backbenchers behave, however, when they fear losing the majority would lead to losing their seats. But that is why a coalition government actually has some advantages because keeping a majority of 50.1% is required to rule. Party discipline means something. A number of parties cooperating means each vote likely matters a great deal. Everyone in the coalition sees advantage to making deals to keep members in line. The result is things can move quite rapidly and coalition parties may feel rather empowered to seek decisions to assure their enduring commitment until that next election starts the clock anew.
Ours is far less dynamic but aligned with a two year cycle. As long as the majority holds sufficient seats through the next election, then the Speaker or the Senate Majority Leader continue to promote their positions with little fear of anything within their own side slowing things down. But once the voter elects a Congress person, it takes a recall election or a formal ouster by peers (good luck with that) to remove that person from the seat. Remember how hard it was for Republicans to remove George Santos?
A unique (as far as I can remember) behaviour is proving especially problematic for our Congress right now, especially for the Republicans. They have a handful of House Members who are not concerned with the Party’s positions but the direction of the de facto Republican Party leader, former president Trump. These Members seek to act on the behalf of this non-Congressional figure to penalise, if not demolish, the positions of their own Party’s members when they deviate from Mr. Trump’s direction. It is as if these individuals were elected as emissaries of the former Chief Executive in another body rather than as representatives of their constituents.
That means the conversation on various policies revolves around support for the positions apparently conveyed from Mar-a-Lago rather than on the merits or even ideological positions of the Republican Party or its members. Mr. Trump unswervingly opposes aid for Ukraine, for example, many of the proclamations within the Republicans came down not to whether the aid merited was good policy that the Speaker could not pass this in defiance of Trump’s position. I am not a professional historian but certainly in the modern era the views of an individual outside of the body and no longer holding elected office has ever been that central to the decision-making for a handful of Members.
I won’t revisit the painful multiple rounds of voting to elect Kevin McCarthy as Speaker in January 2023 but he made concessions regarding his governing style for the House in exchange for sufficient votes as Speaker. One of those agreements was that any single member of his caucus could ask for a vote to oust him—a desperate concession that indeed cost him his job nine months into his speakership.
This rather dangerous acquiescence enhanced the power of individual Members greatly. Rather than building Party strength, it empowered critics within his own tribe to undermine the coalition-building that strong parties need to survive and thrive. Several of the regular discontented members recognised this as a method to stress a personal agenda as much as highlight the preferences of the former president.
The truth is that this wouldn’t matter if the Republican majority in the House were larger. In a small majority, parties usually bond more firmly to prevent precisely these types of fights which threaten majority control. Yet McCarthy, then increasingly Speaker Mike Johnson are finding their biggest dangers to be those who they expected to support them. Voters don’t seem to care because we still reelect our Senators and Representatives with great frequency.
In an era of more Members elected from the extremes of the political spectrum in both parties, this creates serious difficulties for anyone to lead. Why do we have such liberals bedeviling Biden and drop dead rightwingers undermining Johnson?
The electoral reforms after Watergate had unintended consequences. Caucuses, primaries, and dark money throw things off in ways unanticipated or unfettered. The free speech and redistricting rulings by the state legislators and Supreme Court exacerbated the problem substnatially. A broad generation of aggressive politicians passionate about change on both sides of the aisle help lead us down this path.
Each of us seeking a sustained, functioning system likely would cite one or two of these moves to roll back but the truth our political system evolves step by step with good intentions much of the time. It’s seductive to blame malevolence when poor thinking is a concurrent issue. These actions just don’t always create what we all see as good outcomes, especially in an era of too many people tuning out so the extremes are the primary voices of advocacy.
Thoughts on this process are welcome: rebuttals, counter points, questions, and examples would help us all think this through. I don’t have all the answers so I welcome your voices.
Thank you for taking time to read this, regardless whether you’re an American voter or under another system. I especially thank the subscribers who help my work so much. Please feel free to circulate this to others if you think it would benefit expanded conversation.
Be well and be safe. FIN
Cliff, I think your bottom portion is on to something. I doubt the bill was a sham but perhaps. I definitely think this is an unmitigated mess but I am not sure the aparty leaders care as much as hey profess.
I have a slightly different take on passing the Ukraine funding. I believe (could be wrong) that there were a bunch of Republican Reps who thought that securing our Southern Border was a higher national interest than securing Ukraine. The first should be a no-brainer. I support the second. Turns out the Republican House did not have the clout to cause the Administration to reverse course on the Border. by the way, what is the Administrations long term goal in keeping the Border open. Is this just to reverse what the previous President did or is this for some other case?
As an aside, I think the so called Senate Compromise Bill on our Border is a sham. It puts off building the Wall until 2028 and allows for 1.8 million illegal aliens (will I get suspended for three days for using that term?) a year.
While we are ignoring the Southern Border, periodically the FBI Director, Mr Christopher Wray, goes to Congress and warns about threats. Is that real or is he just doing it so that the Administration can, after the fact, say, "We told you."
Yes, it is odd that Mr Trump has such sway with some of the sitting Members, given that he couldn't pull more into the House in 2022. I don't think it is a good direction, but it may reflect a deeper split ion the Republican Party, one I observe up her in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Before Mr Trump descended the Golden Escalator there was the Tea Party. And after the flag is folded over his coffin that branch will still be around. The Republican Party is not, like the Democratic Party, well disciplined. There is no "three line whip" phenomena. Perhaps, if there was a Republican President and Senate, with more goodies to give out, things would be better.
Regards -- Cliff