The vote for House speaker is the kind of government procedure that Americans often ignore, but yesterday’s highly unusual votes have important implications for the future of the Republican Party and how it will govern.
On their first day in the majority, House Republicans couldn’t agree on who will lead them. Representative Kevin McCarthy has sought for years to become speaker, but some members of his party’s far-right faction refused to back him. It was the first time in 100 years that the House failed to elect a speaker on the first ballot, and lawmakers adjourned after three ballots without making a choice. The Democratic House leader, Hakeem Jeffries, even received more votes than McCarthy in all three rounds of voting.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, a far-right lawmaker who has become a close ally of McCarthy’s, accused her fellow hard-liners of “playing Russian roulette with our hard-earned Republican majority.” Bill Huizenga, another McCarthy supporter, asked his colleagues, “You guys aren’t interested in governing?”
Meanwhile, Donald Trump, who had endorsed McCarthy, refused to say after the votes if he was sticking to his endorsement. (McCarthy later said that he had talked to Trump and still had his support.)
Part of McCarthy’s problem is that his party holds a narrow margin in the House, with 222 seats to Democrats’ 212. So he requires support from Republicans’ right-wing flank to reach the majority he needs to be speaker. But that is only part of the story.
Republicans also don’t agree on what the party is and what it should stand for: Should it continue down the path that Trump began when he won the Republican nomination for president in 2016? Or should the party moderate and embrace more compromise to consolidate power?
“There are a number of lawmakers in this group who have never liked McCarthy and have never trusted him,” said my colleague Catie Edmondson, who covers Congress. “They see him as an extension of the establishment in D.C. that they want to tear down.”
The answers to these questions will help shape how Republicans will govern — whether they will stick to an uncompromising version of Trumpism or adopt more moderate views to win over more voters. “Regardless of the outcome, the votes have already shown there is a powerful group of right-wing lawmakers who are not going to be afraid to throw their weight around,” Catie said.
Today’s newsletter will look at the potential consequences for Republicans and the country.
Trumpism or not
The Republican fracture in the House is the latest example of a broader debate within the party: Should Republicans fully embrace Trumpism?
McCarthy has sworn allegiance to Trump, who has called him “my Kevin.” But while McCarthy has courted far-right members, he takes a more pragmatic view of politics than much of the party’s far right. He believes that for Republicans to accomplish anything, they have to nominate more moderate candidates who can win in swing districts. And to pass major bills, Republicans may occasionally have to compromise.
McCarthy’s Republican opponents take a more hard-line approach. Many do not believe in compromising with politicians who do not believe in Trumpism. They would like to oust Trump critics from the party. And they don’t trust McCarthy to carry out that vision.
These ideological divides animate many of the debates over who should be the next speaker. They are also driving other debates within the party, including over who should be the party’s presidential nominee in 2024.
No compromise
In party politics, extreme flanks frequently butt heads with more moderate figures. What’s unusual about modern-day far-right lawmakers is their willingness to reject compromise and take on their own leaders. They effectively evicted the past two Republican speakers, John Boehner and Paul Ryan. McCarthy himself had to withdraw from the speaker race in 2015 after a right-wing revolt, giving way for Ryan’s bid.
Since then, McCarthy has made overtures to ultraconservatives to shore up their support. One example: Before yesterday’s vote, he announced that he would allow just five lawmakers to call a vote at any time to oust the speaker. The move was a shift from his previous stance opposing a snap vote altogether, but it still fell short of the view of the party’s hard-liners, who said such a vote should require only one lawmaker proposing it.
The concession was not enough for those ultraconservatives, who still see McCarthy as too moderate. The right-wing Club for Growth released a statement on Monday that suggested it opposed McCarthy’s bid for speaker unless he met specific demands. It criticized House Republican super PAC spending in primaries, which McCarthy has leveraged to boost more moderate candidates.
Potential consequences
Because Republicans don’t control the Senate or White House, their infighting in the House may not lead to immediate, broader consequences.
But House Republicans do have some things they want to get done and need a speaker for, particularly staffing House committees to investigate the Biden administration. A protracted debate over who should lead the House is already slowing down those inquiries.
And eventually, a divided House majority could lead to more government shutdowns and economic crises if Republicans can’t secure the votes for must-pass bills.
At the very least, the situation is a preview of Republicans’ struggles to move on from the 2020 election.
For more
-
McCarthy lost support as the balloting continued. Nineteen Republicans opposed him during the first and second votes, and 20 during the third.
-
The Republican defectors coalesced around Jim Jordan, a hard-right congressman from Ohio who supports McCarthy.
-
Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert are among those opposing McCarthy. Their demands include limits on spending and a vote on term limits for members of Congress.
-
George Santos, who made false claims about his background, spent his first day in Congress shunned by his Republican colleagues.
-
Salary transparency in California. Legal sports betting in Ohio. These are some of the laws taking effect.
THE LATEST NEWS
N.F.L.
-
Damar Hamlin of the Buffalo Bills is still in critical condition after suffering cardiac arrest during a game on Monday.
-
Medical experts said a blow to the chest, in a precise spot at a precise moment, could have sent Hamlin’s heart into an erratic rhythm.
-
After a wrenching year for Buffalo, one bright spot — the Bills — has become another source of pain. “Buffalo is strong, but this is all too much,” a news anchor said.
-
The N.F.L. is a uniting force. But fans must recognize their complicity in the violence on the field, The Times’s Kurt Streeter writes.
Severe Weather
Other Big Stories
Opinions
The surge of respiratory viruses exposes a health care industry unprepared to look after critically ill children, Alexander Stockton and Lucy King argue in this video.
It’s time for laws to better support and fairly pay workers with disabilities, Pepper Stetler writes.
World Through a Lens: Timeless portraits of the arcades of Los Angeles.
Happiness challenge, Day 3: Make small talk with a stranger. (If you missed the first couple of days, start from the beginning.)
Wonder: A sense of awe can be a salve for a turbulent mind.
A Times classic: His family had money. Hers didn’t.
Advice from Wirecutter: Essential home-repair tools.
Lives Lived: The drummer Fred White was the “brick wall” of the band Earth, Wind & Fire, his half brother once wrote, providing the beat on hits like “September” and “Boogie Wonderland.” White died at 67.
SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETIC
U.S.M.N.T. coach claims blackmail: Gregg Berhalter said that someone contacted U.S. Soccer last month about a 1991 domestic violence incident in an apparent attempt to “take him down.”
Zion Williamson to miss at least three weeks: The Pelicans star will again miss extended time with an injury — this one a hamstring strain. It’s a blow for New Orleans, whose sustained success is a big surprise of this N.B.A. season.
ARTS AND IDEAS
“Their sense of artistic expression is what every adult wishes they had,” said Christina Wyshnytzky, an assistant curator at the museum. Many children chose to depict images of war — tanks, soldiers, planes. But the children who had experienced the most severe trauma tended to focus on lighter images.
“It’s hard not to start crying when you work with them,” Yustyna Pavliuk, one of the women behind the program, said, “but they continue living.”
