GOP Speaker Controversy Did Not Cause House Chaos
News Analysis
Shortly after now-former Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was ousted on Oct. 3 in a historic first, mainstream media was flooded with alarms such as The New York Times’ declaration that “the House [was] plunged into chaos” and “paralyzed until a successor is chosen.”
Similarly, National Public Radio described the House as “virtually frozen,” while Politico quoted Marquette University professor of political science Julia Azari saying that “the ability of the House of Representatives to operate is in question.”
Related Stories
Mr. McCarthy was ousted after Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and seven other Republicans joined with 208 Democrats to declare the speaker’s seat vacant. The House Republican Conference subsequently picked House Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) to succeed Mr. McCarthy, but the Louisiana Republican is at this writing struggling to get 217 of the 221 House Republicans, including at least some of the Gaetz eight, to support him.
In fact, though disquieting, media claims of chaos and paralysis were far from accurate because, for the most part, the daily business of the House of Representatives moved right along despite the political confusion and uncertainty that followed the McCarthy drama, including the installation of Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) as the acting speaker. Mr. McHenry can call the House into session and recess it, but he has limited powers to shape the legislative schedule.
In the week after the speaker’s gavel was wrested from Mr. McCarthy, for example, the House Homeland Security Committee, chaired by Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), released the third interim report on its investigation of “the crisis at the Southwest border and how the policies and actions of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas have precipitated the worst border crisis in American history.”
The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, chaired by Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), announced that it’s convening a hearing on Oct. 18 on “’Strengthening Biosafety and Biosecurity Standards: Protecting Against Future Pandemics’ to evaluate the effectiveness of existing biosafety and biosecurity practices in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and to discuss future policy improvements.”
And House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) scheduled a hearing—also on Oct. 18—on “Exposing EPA Efforts to Limit Chemicals Needed for Life-Saving Medical Devices and Other Essential Products.” The EPA hearing was one of three upcoming committee events announced at the same time by Ms. McMorris Rodgers.
That much of the work of Congress continues uninterrupted even when the House is without a speaker elected by a majority and must depend upon an acting speaker shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with how things work on Capitol Hill, according to Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Robert Moffit.
“As far as this issue of the House of Representatives coming to a standstill, I can assure you that over the past several days, the congressional staff that I have been dealing with have been working very diligently on matters that they have not yet been able to complete,” Mr. Moffit told The Epoch Times.
He is a veteran of several congressional staff positions and has also worked in the executive branch, handling congressional relations for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. Moffit holds a doctorate in political science from the University of Arizona and speaks and writes frequently on U.S. political thought and history.
“Anyone who has worked on Capitol Hill knows that 10-, 12-, even 14-hour days are kind of normal, and it doesn’t stop simply because there is a change in the floor leadership,” Mr. Moffit said.
Someone who wouldn’t have been surprised by recent events in Congress would have been James Madison, one of the three authors who wrote anonymously as “Publius” in The Federalist Papers in defense of the then-proposed U.S. Constitution. He would subsequently be elected as the fourth president of the United States under the Constitution.
Mr. Madison was also among the key architects of the Constitution during the Philadelphia convention of 1787, one of the primary purposes of which was to find a way to prevent political factions from destroying the infant American republic just as they had so many past democracies from ancient times forward.
“Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction,” Mr. Madison famously wrote in Federalist No. 10.
“The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it.”
The cure, according to Mr. Madison, was to divide the powers of government among three branches in the central authority, as well as between it and the states. In the same way, the legislative branch itself was to be divided between the Senate and House. The result would be that, with the multiplicity and diversity of interests represented, especially within the lower chamber, legislators would be forced to deliberate and compromise in order to assemble a majority and govern.
“In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this in-conveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit,” Mr. Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51.
Thus, the rights and interests of minorities in the United States would best be protected by the immense difficulties in forging a legislative majority—much less one also capable of controlling the other two branches—capable of inflicting injury without being checked. Political factions are unavoidable, but individual liberty can best be protected, and representative government can best function, when decisions must be made by majorities forged through deliberation and compromise, according to Mr. Madison.
In other words, according to Mr. Moffit: “If there is any lesson to the Federalist Papers, it is that sound public policy is and must be based on the deliberation of the elected representatives of the people, and public policy must, because we have a pluralistic society of states and population, be based on compromise and consensus. That is the only way a legislature can operate effectively in a pluralistic, democratic society.”
To be sure, as long as Mr. McHenry presides while lacking the authority to regulate the schedule and content of the legislative process, the House is temporarily limited. But a simple majority can possibly change the job description for the acting speaker to include scheduling legislative business to go forward on the House floor while the various factions within the Republican conference work out their admittedly intense differences.
Sooner or later, however, all of those Republican factions will realize they must find a compromise lest some of them break partisan rank and join House Democrats in naming a new speaker supported by only a tiny minority of Republicans.
That realization is essential, Cato Institute senior fellow Roger Pilon contends, if the Gaetz eight want to implement their bottom-line goal of ending the use of temporary spending authorizations such as Continuing Resolutions (CRs) rather than major appropriations written in committee, then fully debated on the House floor and approved by a majority.
Mr. Pilon earned his doctorate in philosophy from the University of Chicago, served in five senior positions during the Reagan administration, and founded Cato’s Center for Constitutional Studies Center in 1989, then oversaw it until 2019.
“The radicals are right on the substance but wrong on the mechanics of governing,” Mr. Pilon told The Epoch Times. “They are right in the sense that this government is spending America into bankruptcy, with no apparent appreciation of that fact, and this cannot end well.
“Just look at Argentina today to see how things are likely to go once the trust funds in our so-called entitlements run dry as they will in a few short years. The radicals are right about that, but you can’t do anything about that or any other problem if you are not able to make compromises that will enable you to stay in power and address them.”
In other words, the Gaetz eight make the perfect the enemy of the good, in Mr. Pilon’s view. As if to illustrate that point, on the Friday before ousting Mr. McCarthy, the Gaetz eight joined Democrats in defeating a CR that, if adopted, would have cut discretionary federal spending by 8 percent across the board.
“Fanatics give us the French Revolution. Rational people give us the American Revolution,” Mr. Pilon said.
How is the House of Representatives addressing important issues and carrying out its legislative responsibilities amidst the uncertainty of selecting a new speaker
News Analysis: House of Representatives Faces Uncertainty, But Continues with Daily Business
Shortly after now-former Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was ousted on October 3, mainstream media outlets were quick to declare that the House was plunged into chaos and paralyzed until a successor is chosen. However, these claims of chaos and paralysis were far from accurate.
Following McCarthy’s removal, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and seven other Republicans joined forces with 208 Democrats to declare the speaker’s seat vacant. The House Republican Conference subsequently chose House Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) as McCarthy’s successor. However, Scalise is currently struggling to gain the support of at least 217 House Republicans, including some of the Gaetz eight.
Despite the political confusion and uncertainty that followed McCarthy’s removal, the daily business of the House of Representatives continued without major disruption. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) was installed as the acting speaker, having the power to call the House into session and recess it, but with limited powers to shape the legislative schedule.
In the week after McCarthy’s removal, there were noteworthy developments in various House committees. The House Homeland Security Committee, chaired by Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), released the third interim report on its investigation into the crisis at the Southwest border and Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’s policies that have contributed to it.
The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, chaired by Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), announced a hearing on October 18 to evaluate the effectiveness of existing biosafety and biosecurity practices in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and discuss future policy improvements.
Additionally, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) scheduled a hearing on October 18 to discuss EPA regulations that could limit chemicals needed for life-saving medical devices and other essential products.
These developments show that despite the leadership turmoil, the House of Representatives continues to address important issues and carry out its legislative responsibilities. While the challenges of gaining support for a new speaker persist, it is evident that the business of the House goes on.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
