Speaker’s Choice

If Paul Ryan’s “no” holds firm, House Republicans must decide between chaos and a coalition with the Democrats.

Paul Ryan: To be or not to be...
AP Photo/Molly Riley
Charlie Cook
Add to Briefcase
Charlie Cook
Oct. 19, 2015, 8 p.m.

He doesn’t want the job—Paul Ry­an has made that abund­antly clear—but Re­pub­lic­ans still hope that the Ways and Means Com­mit­tee chair­man will change his mind and seek the House speak­er­ship. He is, after all, the only pos­sible can­did­ate who could plaus­ibly bridge the ideo­lo­gic­al, styl­ist­ic, and stra­tegic chasm between the main­stream, es­tab­lish­ment-friendly Re­pub­lic­ans and the 35 to 40 law­makers, mostly mem­bers of the Free­dom Caucus, that The Wall Street Journ­al has dubbed “the Re­fuseniks.”

Even if Ry­an as­sents, however, the path to the speak­er­ship might re­quire con­ces­sions to the Re­fuseniks that he would be un­will­ing to make. One Free­dom Caucus de­mand is to co­di­fy the so-called Hastert Rule, re­quir­ing that a ma­jor­ity of the cham­ber’s Re­pub­lic­ans sup­port a meas­ure be­fore the full House can con­sider it. This would change the House to one in which a plur­al­ity, not a ma­jor­ity, rules. Noth­ing could pass the House without ap­prov­al from 124 Re­pub­lic­ans, the barest ma­jor­ity of the cham­ber’s 247 Re­pub­lic­ans, ef­fect­ively mov­ing the ideo­lo­gic­al cen­ter of grav­ity to the right. This would fur­ther mar­gin­al­ize the House, already the most ideo­lo­gic­al part of the elec­ted gov­ern­ment.

Here’s the di­lemma for House Re­pub­lic­ans. The Re­fuseniks have made it clear that they won’t ac­cept an es­tab­lish­ment choice, with the pos­sible—though not cer­tain—ex­cep­tion of Ry­an. Un­stated, but equally true, is that a much lar­ger num­ber of main­stream Re­pub­lic­ans won’t ac­cept any­one from the Free­dom Caucus or sym­path­et­ic to it. Not want­ing the tail to wag the dog, they’re un­will­ing to give in to what they see as a few dozen mem­bers tak­ing the speak­er­ship host­age. The GOP’s ma­jor­ity is pretty firmly en­trenched, but a sure­fire way to be­come a minor­ity again is for the House to ad­opt the Free­dom Caucus’s agenda. Keep in mind that the elect­or­ate next year, when the pres­id­ency is on the bal­lot, is very dif­fer­ent from the older, whiter, more-con­ser­vat­ive, and more-Re­pub­lic­an voters who gave the GOP an im­press­ive ma­jor­ity in 2014.

If Ry­an’s no re­mains no, we can as­sume that John Boehner will stay on as speak­er for a while—but not forever. This would leave Re­pub­lic­ans with a choice: chaos or a co­ali­tion. The pro­spect of chaos looks par­tic­u­larly scary right now, giv­en the im­me­di­ate need to raise the lim­it on the fed­er­al debt be­fore the gov­ern­ment ex­ceeds it. Cur­rent pro­jec­tions put the date of a de­fault at Nov. 3 or so. But the House ac­tu­ally needs to raise the debt lim­it this week, in case hard-line con­ser­vat­ive Ted Cruz, the Texas Re­pub­lic­an who is run­ning for pres­id­ent, raises pro­ced­ur­al hurdles in the Sen­ate. Soon after that is re­solved, the con­tinu­ing res­ol­u­tion that’s fin­an­cing the gov­ern­ment is due to run out on Dec. 11.

So, what’s the al­tern­at­ive? Should Ry­an re­fuse the speak­er­ship, con­sider an un­pre­ced­en­ted, here­to­fore in­con­ceiv­able, pos­sib­il­ity: a co­ali­tion with the cham­ber’s Demo­crats. Not a co­ali­tion gov­ern­ment in a par­lia­ment­ary sense, shar­ing lead­er­ship po­s­i­tions and the chair­man­ships of com­mit­tees and sub­com­mit­tees. In­stead, a Re­pub­lic­an would gain the speak­er­ship with a bloc of GOP votes plus sup­port from enough Demo­crats—anxious for a speak­er they could ac­tu­ally work with—to add up to 218 mem­bers, a House ma­jor­ity.

The nuc­le­us of such a co­ali­tion is the 91 House Re­pub­lic­ans who voted last month in fa­vor of a con­tinu­ing res­ol­u­tion (151 voted against it) to keep the gov­ern­ment run­ning. Be­sides those, the co­ali­tion would draw as many votes as pos­sible from the oth­er 110 or so GOP law­makers who don’t be­long to the Free­dom Caucus. Then, the Demo­crats. A crit­ic­al mass of Demo­crat­ic law­makers might ac­cept any of a hand­ful of seni­or House Re­pub­lic­ans.

An ob­vi­ous ques­tion is why Demo­crats would help elect a Re­pub­lic­an speak­er without get­ting any tan­gible be­ne­fits. The reas­on: Most House Demo­crats ran for Con­gress in hopes of ac­com­plish­ing things rather than just throw­ing rocks at the cham­ber’s ma­jor­ity. Get­ting some things done, they fig­ure, is prefer­able to get­ting noth­ing done. By elect­ing a speak­er they could work with, they’d as­sure them­selves a voice. An­oth­er be­ne­fit to Demo­crats: Should such a co­ali­tion suc­ceed, the Free­dom Caucus could be­come totally mar­gin­al­ized. It’s hard to ima­gine how its mem­bers could re­tain any com­mit­tee or sub­com­mit­tee chair­man­ships.

This next week or two are likely to be in­ter­est­ing, in­deed—the poker about as high-stakes as Cap­it­ol Hill ever en­coun­ters. Dead­lines are pil­ing up, adding to the drama. Keep an eye on the forth­com­ing vote on wheth­er to reau­thor­ize the Ex­port-Im­port Bank, only the third time in dec­ades that a meas­ure has reached the House floor through a dis­charge pe­ti­tion, signed by a ma­jor­ity of House mem­bers. More than 40 Re­pub­lic­ans joined Demo­crats to cir­cum­vent con­ser­vat­ives on the House Bank­ing Com­mit­tee who had bottled up the meas­ure, to force a vote that is sched­uled for Oct. 26. Three days later, fed­er­al fin­an­cing for high­ways is set to ex­pire, un­less Con­gress acts to re­new it. Whatever hap­pens, don’t ex­pect to be bored.

What We're Following See More »
INDICTMENTS NOT PROOF OF COLLUSION
Rosenstein Holds Presser On Russian Indictments
1 days ago
THE DETAILS
Source:
CONTRADICTS TRUMP’S DENIALS
U.S. Indicts 13 Russian Nationals For Election Interference
1 days ago
THE LATEST

The indictment, filed in the District of Columbia, alleges that the interference began "in or around 2014," when the defendants began tracking and studying U.S. social media sites. They "created and controlled numerous Twitter accounts" and "purchased computer servers located inside the United States" to mask their identities, some of which were stolen. The interference was coordinated by election interference "specialists," and focused on the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, and other divisive issues. "By early to mid-2016" the groups began supporting the campaign of "then-candidate Donald Trump," including by communicating with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign..."

Source:
“QUEEN FOR A DAY”
Gates Said to Be Finalizing a Plea Deal
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case. Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a 'Queen for a Day' interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed."

Source:
ZERO-FOR-TWO
Another Defeat for Immigration Legislation in the Senate
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"The Senate on Thursday rejected immigration legislation crafted by centrists in both parties after President Trump threatened to veto the bill if it made it to his desk. In a 54-45 vote, the Senate failed to advance the legislation from eight Republican, seven Democratic and one Independent senators. It needed 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle. "

Source:
DISPUTE ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
House Intel Panel Could Charge Bannon with Contempt
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"The House Intelligence Committee has scheduled a Thursday meeting to hear testimony from Steve Bannon—but it's an open question whether President Donald Trump's former chief strategist will even show up. The White House sent a letter to Capitol Hill late Wednesday laying out its explanation for why Trump's transition period falls under its authority to assert executive privilege, a move intended to shield Bannon from answering questions about that time period." Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee dispute the White House's theory, and have floated charging Bannon with contempt should he refuse to appear.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login