Save Our Bacon!
A bipartisan coalition can end the speakership crisis
This past Wednesday, in the second vote for House speaker since the defenestration of Kevin McCarthy on October 3, Republican nominee Jim Jordan lost by an even larger margin than he had the day before. Against unanimous votes among Democrats for their leader Hakeem Jeffries, 22 Republicans voted for someone other than Jordan, compared with 20 who did so Tuesday. As of close of business yesterday (Thursday October 19), the Republican conference was reportedly intent on giving Jordan at least one additional shot at the gavel Friday morning, beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern Time – just hours after the publication of this essay.
Earlier yesterday, the Republican conference considered and then dismissed a temporary solution that Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries reportedly had entertained – namely, to confer on Acting Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry the powers of an actual (not acting) speaker pro tempore to lead the House of Representatives. Absent such an affirmative vote, McHenry is willing to do nothing more substantive in his role than preside over the election of a new speaker. Having earlier resisted it, Jordan reportedly spoke up for the idea of empowering McHenry, but only on condition that McHenry’s enhanced power expire no later than early January, by which time Jordan expects to have won over a sufficient number of fellow House Republicans to gain the speakership.
Reporting in Roll Call suggests that a controlling faction of the Republican conference will brook no such compromise.
House Republicans shelved a proposal to install Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick T. McHenry in a more official role possibly through December just hours after the speaker-designate, Rep. Jim Jordan, gave it his blessing on Thursday.
Facing an increasingly imperiled bid to become speaker due to lack of support within the conference, Jordan had told House Republicans on Thursday morning that he would instead support expanding McHenry’s authority to get the chamber functioning again temporarily.
But GOP lawmakers leaving an hours-long meeting Thursday afternoon said there was little support for empowering McHenry either, even if just for a few months.
“We made the pitch to members on the resolution as a way to lower the temperature and get back to work. We decided that wasn’t where we’re going to go,” Jordan, R-Ohio, said. “I’m still running for speaker, and I plan to go to the floor and get the votes and win this race.”
The possibility that Jordan will be able to secure sufficient votes to win the speaker election anytime soon is remote. “Soon” is an elastic term, though. Absent another continuing resolution, the government will shut down in 28 days. Concern for Israel (and among some also for Ukraine) is bound to render Jordan’s Republican opponents impatient to end the stalemate. How would they do so? Capitulate to Jordan? Overcome opposition to empowering McHenry? Or make common cause with Democrats to achieve something more ambitious?
As I noted in an October 10 essay, Leader Jeffries has signaled Democrats’ desire to enter into a power-sharing arrangement with the Republicans. Following the Washington Post’s October 6 publication of his essay “A bipartisan coalition is the way forward for the House,” Jeffries spoke specifically on the theme in the course of an October 15 appearance on Meet the Press.
KRISTEN WELKER: What are your demands, Leader Jeffries? You talk about changing the rules in the House. Can you tick through a couple of your demands that you're going to ask for?
LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, these aren't demands. We are ready to be reasonable in trying to find the common ground necessary to ensure that–
KRISTEN WELKER: What are they? What is it that you want?
LEADER JEFFRIES: We want to ensure that votes are taken on bills that have substantial Democratic support and substantial Republican support so that the extremists aren't able to dictate the agenda. The current rules of the House have facilitated a handful of Republicans being able to determine what gets voted on in the House of Representatives, and that undermines the interests of the American people. We can change the rules to facilitate bipartisanship, and that should be the starting point of our conversation and leaders.
Jeffries’ ambitious proposal is laudable! I am highly skeptical, however, that a sufficient number of Republicans would be willing to make such a formal concession to the Democrats. It would be much simpler, I think, for the Democrats under Jeffries’ leadership to identify and support a principled Republican alternative to Jordan, one who shares Democrats’ interest in bipartisan legislating.
Meet the Press host Kristen Welker asked about this idea in the interview:
KRISTEN WELKER: You'd effectively need about five Democrats to get on board and support a Republican Speaker to have a governing coalition. Have you identified a candidate who you could potentially get behind? And would you allow your members to vote for a Republican Speaker?
LEADER JEFFRIES: We have not identified any candidate on the other side of the aisle because our focus is not on the individual, it's on the institution of Congress and the best interests of the American people, which is why what we've suggested is that we re-evaluate the rules that are currently in place to facilitate bipartisan cooperation and to eliminate division.
Jeffries is a smart and highly skilled politician. Perhaps he will be proved right in his approach. I would like to think, however, that he and his team are at least considering as a Plan B the identification of a Republican that Democrats could support as speaker and along with that a plan for communicating with like-minded Republicans to vote such a one into the position.
In all three of my preceding essays on the post-McCarthy speakership challenge (October 3, October 10, and October 14), I have pointed to the Problem Solvers Caucus, which is a group of House members that is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats and is “committed to finding common ground on many of the key issues facing the nation.” I have proposed Republican officers of the group as candidates for speaker whom Democrats could support. Disappointingly, two of those I named – Republican co-chair Brian Fitzpatrick and vice chair Dusty Johnson – voted both times for Jordan, which is disqualifying. The third one I named, Republican whip Don Bacon, remains strong.
Yesterday, under the headline “Why House Republicans Can’t Function, According to a House Republican,” the New York Times published a very interesting interview that columnist Jane Coaston had conducted with Bacon last week. Here is a key excerpt:
Do you think the traditional conservatives are winning the conversation in the G.O.P. right now? Judging based on McCarthy’s loss and, again, some of the rhetoric you’re hearing, it sounds like it’s losing.
Well, I think there’s a fight for the soul of the party. I don’t know who’s got the upper hand. I think Ukraine is a reflection of this right now. But I feel like many of our leadership don’t want to be the lightning rod, so they try to slide under the radar. We should have been pushing back from Day 1 on the Ukraine conspiracy theories that are running around. I mean, I still get mail that the Nazis are running Ukraine, bio-labs and all this stuff. We should have been more verbal from the get-go and stood up to this. I’ve asked our leadership, even if it’s not the popular thing to do, you’ve got to stand on truth, because in the end, the truth wins.
In the winter, there was a little bit of talk about the idea of a bipartisan coalition choosing a speaker, which probably makes sense to a lot of people in terms of reducing the sway of a few people, but it also seems impossible. Is that actually impossible?
It’s essentially never been done. That tells you one thing. I don’t think we’re ready for it right at this moment. However, if we have another vacate-the-chair situation, I think at some point people are going to say, “This is the only alternative. We’re going to have to do a more bipartisan leadership.”
Passing the most conservative bills out of the House that just die in the Senate — it’s not governing. I don’t think we’re ready for it yet. But if we have continued chaos like we’ve had, like we had in January, I think more and more folks will come to the realization it’s the only way forward.
Although in this interview he expressed skepticism, Axios reported in an October 13 article that other members have considered him as a possible bipartisan choice for speaker and Bacon himself spoke of forging a bipartisan solution to the crisis:
Lawmakers in both parties are expressing growing openness, both in public and in private, to a bipartisan deal to elect a House speaker as Republicans are continually thwarted in their efforts to do it alone.
[...]
What they're saying: "There's a sentiment building around [a bipartisan deal] among Democrats and Republicans," Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), a member of Democratic leadership who represents a swing district, told Axios.
"We're open to anything that's reasonable," said Rep. Maria Salazar (R-Fla.), a member of the moderate Republican Governance Group. "Bipartisanship is not a sin."
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a perennial bipartisan dealmaker, said "at this point, there are enough Republicans and Democrats saying we've got to get this fixed."
Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said, as the situation devolves, he sees Republicans "absolutely" getting more open to a deal: "Yes, I mean you're seeing that."
[...]
What we're hearing: A bipartisan group of roughly ten House lawmakers is quietly holding "very" serious discussions, a moderate Republican involved in the discussions told Axios on the condition of anonymity.
"The question is who gets you to the largest minority of the majority," the GOP lawmaker said. "Is it Don Bacon, who gets 20 [GOP] votes and 200 Democrats? Is it French Hill who gets 100 votes from Republicans? And the fewer Republicans, the more dangerous this is – not just politically, but structurally."
I have analyzed the voting in the two speaker elections that the House conducted this week, paying special attention to two categories of Republican voters: (a) members of the Problem Solvers Caucus, and (b) those who voted for a candidate other than Jordan. In addition to their speaker election votes, I noted how they voted on two bills: H.R. 5692, which would provide supplemental funding support for Ukraine; and H.R. 5860, the continuing resolution passed on September 30 that funds the government through November 17, temporarily averting a shutdown. In my grading of the two cohorts I scrutinized, I awarded a perfect score to those who voted against Jordan and for both of these measures.
Based on the October 18 speaker election vote combined with the voting records on the two earlier bills, I have identified the following members of the Republican conference as those with whom the Democratic caucus most likely can collaborate to elect Don Bacon speaker:
When the House conducts a speaker election, each member in turn simply calls out the name of the person for whom that member chooses to vote. Although Jordan and Jeffries were the nominees of their respective parties, 22 Republican members cast votes for 10 other individuals (Kay Granger being one of the alternatives who received at least one vote).
The 13 members listed above are the most likely Republicans to join with Democrats to elevate Bacon or someone like him as speaker. Perhaps others would as well. On the other hand, perhaps some of these would not after all. This is a question for the Democratic caucus leaders to resolve in preparation for a future speaker election, if not later today then perhaps on a future date.
This is very thorough and a great insight into who the most 'trustworthy' Repubs in the House would be for Dems. If only it could be brought to Jeffries' attention!