That’s all very sensible. It all feels a bit 2017-19 Brexit-like- similar situation where you take a normally majoritarian system and put it on a knife edge. I could also see why defections (a decent escape valve for many other legislatures) could empower the far left and so not be a good option for moderate republicans either. I wonder if ousting Johnson in favour of a unity candidate backed by some democrats could be an option? Or maybe there’s just too little trust to pull it off and high incentives for the dems to watch the republicans fail (not to mention trump patronage, cultural polarisation, etc).
Yes - there's not really any history in America of that kind of arrangement, even when polarization was much less pronounced. It has always been the responsibility of the majority party to fill the speakership and there's not a lot of appetite to change that. The two parties are now so far apart and distrustful of each other that it's very unlikely you would get that kind of arrangement or that it could last very long.
Interesting article thanks! Why don’t moderate republicans threaten to remove him if he doesn’t propose Ukraine funding? There seems to be a similar issue here in the UK where the right of the Conservative Party exercise their veto power much more effectively than the centre; I’m keen to understand it. I feel like there must be more to it than relative levels of shamelessness/commitment to the party…
In the current Congress, it's mostly because of the very small majority that Republicans have and the fact that if the centrists kick Johnson out, they're extremely unlikely to get a replacement who is any more likely to move the aid.
As soon as a speaker is kicked out, there has to be a vote on who will be the new one. All the Democrats will vote against whoever the GOP proposes. So with a majority of only one or two seats in the House, the GOP candidate needs near-unanimous support from within the GOP caucus in order to take the position.
That's a situation which really empowers people who care more about demonstrating their right-wing bona fides than about making the House run as an institution. The center will line up behind a candidate, but the right wing will sabotage anyone who they think isn't one of them. Even if they do let a candidate take the position, they'll place all kinds of shackles on what the speaker can actually do once he takes power. That's why Johnson and McCarthy before him have been unable to get much done and been embroiled in these constant struggles with the right.
If the GOP had a majority of say 40 seats, it'd be easy - the center could just ignore the right and install a speaker who would move the bill. But they can't do that in this situation.
That’s all very sensible. It all feels a bit 2017-19 Brexit-like- similar situation where you take a normally majoritarian system and put it on a knife edge. I could also see why defections (a decent escape valve for many other legislatures) could empower the far left and so not be a good option for moderate republicans either. I wonder if ousting Johnson in favour of a unity candidate backed by some democrats could be an option? Or maybe there’s just too little trust to pull it off and high incentives for the dems to watch the republicans fail (not to mention trump patronage, cultural polarisation, etc).
Yes - there's not really any history in America of that kind of arrangement, even when polarization was much less pronounced. It has always been the responsibility of the majority party to fill the speakership and there's not a lot of appetite to change that. The two parties are now so far apart and distrustful of each other that it's very unlikely you would get that kind of arrangement or that it could last very long.
Interesting article thanks! Why don’t moderate republicans threaten to remove him if he doesn’t propose Ukraine funding? There seems to be a similar issue here in the UK where the right of the Conservative Party exercise their veto power much more effectively than the centre; I’m keen to understand it. I feel like there must be more to it than relative levels of shamelessness/commitment to the party…
In the current Congress, it's mostly because of the very small majority that Republicans have and the fact that if the centrists kick Johnson out, they're extremely unlikely to get a replacement who is any more likely to move the aid.
As soon as a speaker is kicked out, there has to be a vote on who will be the new one. All the Democrats will vote against whoever the GOP proposes. So with a majority of only one or two seats in the House, the GOP candidate needs near-unanimous support from within the GOP caucus in order to take the position.
That's a situation which really empowers people who care more about demonstrating their right-wing bona fides than about making the House run as an institution. The center will line up behind a candidate, but the right wing will sabotage anyone who they think isn't one of them. Even if they do let a candidate take the position, they'll place all kinds of shackles on what the speaker can actually do once he takes power. That's why Johnson and McCarthy before him have been unable to get much done and been embroiled in these constant struggles with the right.
If the GOP had a majority of say 40 seats, it'd be easy - the center could just ignore the right and install a speaker who would move the bill. But they can't do that in this situation.