Thanks for the clarification. That’s what I thought you meant when I first read it, but then I wasn’t sure.
I was listening to the radio from my Berkeley dorm room when I heard that Mascone was shot, and Feinstein first entered my awareness. And my feelings about both her and Pelosi have been extremely mixed. Happy to see women leaders. Not happy to see them amass power for power’s sake and “decorum,” as opposed to the good of the country. And really irked at their not knowing when to step down. It seems Feinstein’s insistence (or her staff’s) on running for reelection is continuing to have consequences, even in her death.
You and I are of one mind about all of this stuff. I didn't come to my Pelosi skepticism easily. I was (and, up to a certain point remain) a HUGE admirer of hers. It was like breathing fresh air when she became speaker after six years of Bush (and many years of Gingrich et al before then). At the time, she was the best imaginable speaker: Of all the candidates, the most progressive, of all the progressives, the most effective. But between some level of institutional capture and being a fish out of water when a goon like Trump became president, it just became undeniable to me that (vote counting and legislative abilities aside) she didn't have the right bearing for the moment. I say that understanding she remains an unalloyed hero to many; but I think holding a bit of distance and a touch of iconoclasm are healthy.
Wow, Pelosi could do math and knew how a bill gets made. Talk about damning with faint praise. After watching the shitshows that have been House GOP led majorities, this is the best you can muster.
You know maybe if so many lazy or purist Dems and lefties (God forbid they would associate with the Dem party) actually came out to vote consistently over the past 23 years, this country would be in a completely different place. You all want the Dems to burn the place down because you think, oh that will show the GOP. Harry Reed changed the Senate rules so Obama’s judiciary picks could make it through GOP obstruction, and to this day he is still excoriated in the press (see both sides break the rules) and among progressives when RW GOP judges get through.
If you don’t think the press’s constant hammering on Dems hasn’t had an effect you aren’t paying attention.
There is a time and a place for loyal opposition. This isn’t it. In addition to keeping her caucus together and passing historic legislation by the slimmest of margins (oh right it wasn’t the exact legislation you all wanted), she was the lone voice--and the lone woman--who stood up to Trump and called him out during a full cabinet meeting at the WH. But nah. She just doesn’t get it.
All worthy topics, but I’ve been thinking about what happens after Thanksgiving, after which we won’t have a functioning government for the following 15 months.
The nightmare scenario goes this way. I expect that Gaetz and the hostage takers will only allow new leadership to ascend if they promise to shut it down when this CR expires.
New leadership (Scalise or Jordan most likely) will demand a ransom price to reopen that Biden and the Senate Dems will never pay (hopefully!) and we’ll be at a stalemate for the remainder of the term.
Rs in Biden districts will be pressured to cut a deal with Dems, but that pressure will pale in comparison to the “Why won’t Biden / Schumer cut a deal with Republicans ?!?” mantra that will dominate the discourse. So the at-risk Rs will not only stay home, but they will exact precisely zero pressure on Jordan / Scalise to moderate their demands.
Because there are no R moderates. And because helping T avoid Justice is the prime directive.
And there we will sit until January 2025 when we either have a Republic or we don’t.
I have no crystal ball here, but I think the incentives point more clearly in the direction of a "consensus" speaker (that is, a Problem Solver-type Republican or an old-timer on the periphery of power like Tom Cole) than a MAGA-aligned speaker or even, like, Steve Scalise. And it's for the reasons you say. Any Republican who can get within a vote or two of 218 *Republican* votes is going to be someone unable to make basic commitments or answer basic questions: Will you shut the government down? Will you allow a vote on Ukraine aid? Was the 2020 election stolen? And their inability to answer those questions satisfactorily is gonna push that handful of vulnerable Republicans away.
Of course, things could get VERY messy. But none of the endgames are obvious, and the least-bad endgame seems a little likelier to me than, say, a Jim Jordan speakership (let alone a Trump speakership).
That certainly is the non-nightmare scenario - and I don't have a view on which is more likely. But the one I laid out - no Speaker and thus no functioning US Gvt for an extended period of time - is on the table, right? At least, I think it is.
So, if the difference between Door No. 1 and Door No. 2 comes down to the "reasonable" Rs concluding that they can't install a Speaker with only R votes and that they have to secure votes from Jeffries/Dems, I'm gonna be fully clenched until it actually happens. Because I have absolutely no faith in them to do the right thing.
(Been enjoying this new home of yours, Brian. Congrats and good luck. We need your voice.)
Historically and globally we have seen democracies weakened or disappeared by the repeated traits of a charismatic populist causing partisan divides; of all political opposition, media, courts, and bureaucracies being labeled as enemies and traitors; of campaigns based on grievance and greed rather than policy; with the traditional unwritten norms of civility and tolerance within the government ignored; free and fair elections stifled before (gerrymandering), during (disenfranchisement), and after (vote counting); packing of the courts; corrupting economic influence on officials and policies; diminished accountability within institutional checks and balances; and more. All these warning signs are in play and growing within the U.S. today. Coup d'etats are rarely violent in our era. The demise of democracy can, and has, come almost imperceptibly slow and gradually. Will American democracy be able to survive the trend if the "leaders" continue such foolish, personally aggrandizing behavior rather than doing the truly hard work to save it?
I agree with what I believe is the thrust of your concluding note, that Democratic and liberal-institutional leaders (hobbled as they may be by the Kyrsten Sinemas and #bothsides journalists of the world) are not bringing their A game to the democracy fight. (That's a big part of why Off Message exists.)
But: they're also not completely botching it AND our homegrown authoritarians are off putting to most people (even if a disturbingly large minority thrills to them).
Add it all up and I think there's probably still a "muddle through" path to saving U.S. democracy. But it's fraught, and we'd be better off with knife fighters.
It’s all about how hot and how long the fire will burn and how high the flames get. And how Americans respond. They think they will have Dems over a barrel unless they give in to their demands. I think the likes of Jeffries and--dare I say her name? Pelosi--will outmaneuver them. But then you guys don’t think that’s really success anyway. You seem to want total victory just like the MAGAs.
What are your thoughts about framing these “democracy in peril” stories as the exact desired outcome of Russian interference in our elections? There seems to be a through-line between these MAGA-made democracy destabilizing events and Russia wanting to point out the problems with American democracy-which is exactly why they started the troll farms in 2015. We are dealing with the fallout of a foreign attack whenever I see headlines like today’s NYTimes “To the World, McCarthy’s Exit Is Just Another Example of U.S. Disarray”
Hi Tyler. I'm not 100 percent sure I understand the question, but let me lay out a few thoughts on the general topic:
*In most democracies, the ousting of a legislative or parliamentary leader isn't evidence of democracy failing, it's evidence of democracy working.
*The U.S. system is strange in ways that may protract this leadership vacuum (the speaker is selected by the whole House, not the ruling party) but at the end of the day McCarthy basically just lost a no-confidence vote.
*Republicans, with their tiny majority, have three options: They can accept what seems to be reality and make a power-sharing arrangement that will still be favorable to them, they can get it together and find a speaker who, like Nancy Pelosi, can maintain the confidence of a slender majority, or they can leave the power vacuum in place and take whatever hits that entails come election time. Either way: still democracy!
*We can't stop foreign propaganda from portraying democracy in its messiness as democracy in crisis. But we do have a democratic crisis here in the U.S., and my strong sense is that it will only be overcome if the small-d democratic majority understands it as such—and in that regard "democracy in peril" stories probably work in the majority's favor.
To what extent do you think Russia’s influence campaign has made American style democracy appear more chaotic and untenable? In other words, did Russia’s support of Trump as a chaos agent succeed in destabilizing democracy overall? Even the speaker fight can be traced back to those Russia-supported MAGA forces. Those elements were always there in American politics, but thinking about the Russian influence as an overt attack on our democracy is helpful to a certain degree.
Oh, yeah, I mean it was a huge coup. Huge payoff. Even if Trump had lost, it would’ve been an extremely high return on subterfuge-investment. The damage has been immense and will be lasting. And it may be the but-for reason we ended up in a speakership crisis—we’ll never know. But I tend to think you can explain it all with 1) republicans have been highly fractious for a long time and 2) ended up with a teeny tiny majority. That could’ve happened in a much better functioning democracy, too.
If I had had to bet before Gaetz filed his motion, I would have bet on Dems voting "present" and keeping McCarthy in the chair without receiving any particular concessions, basically on a lesser-of-evils theory. I didn;t believe until I saw the Whip guidance for a yes vote on the motion to vacate that they were actually going to kick him out. All things considered, I think this was a worthwhile risk for Dems to take - the model where Democrats do what needs to be done (eg, fund the government) and the GOP extracts a political price for them doing so is not sustainable.
Are you surprised? Do you think refusing to throw McCarthy a lifeline was the right move? Do you expect a long battle over the speakership followed by a shutdown in November? Is Ukraine screwed?
1. I'm not surprised, though I also would not have been surprised if Dems had failed to maintain unity and saved McCarthy's hide. House Dems are pretty good in opposition.
2. I do think it was the right move. IF Republicans are ever going to regroup in a less reactionary formation, it's not gonna be through appeasement; and even if Dems and the public can never punish them enough to reform, it was the right move on basic dignity grounds, and dignity is a political winner. Standing up to people who sucker punch you is righteous as a matter of personal integrity AND good politics. Nobody likes a pushover (says someone who remembers swiftboating).
Let's say Trump really angles for the Speaker gavel. Could he feasibly get the votes and how do we know some of the key ways he'd weaponize the position?
1. VERY unlikely but I wouldn't rule it out, for many of the same reasons I have a hard time seeing Speaker Jordan or even Speaker Scalise. (More in tomorrow's newsletter.)
2. Fortunately the debt limit is off the table. But, e.g., I presume he'd shut the government down and aim to leave it shut unless and until DOJ dropped charges against him. Then we'd have to ask: would a handful of vulnerable House Rs line up with Dems to force the government back open. Maybe? Probably? But also, some of them would have just voted to make Trump speaker, so maybe not.
There's be a lot of petty revenge, too. No codels (official trips abroad) for Dems, no State of the Union address, no disaster relief for blue states. It would be extremely ugly. But (on the plus side?) I think Biden would start to pull away in polls.
According to Bloomberg and other news reports, current GOP rules prohibit anyone indicted for a felony with a 2 year+ sentence can serve as Speaker (of course they can change the rules)
One of the safest bets you can makes is that it can always get worse in American politics, particularly in the House, and most especially on the right. It's like playing with house money. And yet, a small part of me wonders, counterintuitively, if can get better, both politically for Democrats, and substantively for House functionality, at least for must-pass stuff, with more of a loon, like Jim Jordan, serving as speaker. I realize this isn't a good bet, however, in my mind, McCarthy's original sin with the far right is that he is of the pre-Trump era; he just looks like an "establishment" guy, and because of that vibe, was never going to have a long leash to conduct political business, even on must-pass legislation. It never mattered what concessions he made to the far right, because ANYTHING he did that wasn't exactly what they wanted was cause to label him a sell out and ship him out, because he wasn't one of them, at least in their eyes.
Josh Marshall of TPM has articulated well the dynamic on the right, in the House since Boehner, which is that the veneer of an establishment guy keeps the House Freedom Caucus and their ilk in a nice little sweet spot; they know intuitively that their vibe is disliked by a majority of Americans, so they don't have to put their faces in front of cameras as the leaders of the chaos, and yet, they functionally control what happens in the broader caucus. It offers a level of plausible deniability on their part for the American public, in that the outward face of the party is still "normal", but the outcomes are decidedly not, and they know that the American public has trouble with assigning blame to the right places.
And yet, my sense is that as the years have rolled along, the Freedom Caucus and their ilk has continued to get higher and higher on their own supply, convinced that they actually should be the face of the party, for better electoral outcomes. History would suggest in this moment that "David Duke without the Baggage" Steve Scalise would be the favorite here, to continue the Figurehead-Hostage Speakership dynamic that's been in place for well over a decade now. And that probably is what will happen, though I do think it's a lot less certain than a lot of others seem to think.
But as it relates to outcomes, both politically and substantively, if Jordan were to win the speakership race, is it a fantasy to think that, because of his history being a far-right-bomb-thrower, decidedly hailing from the mold of the Freedom Caucus, that he'd be both given a longer leash to pass the must-pass, keep-the-government-open stuff, while at the same time, further sullying the opinion of the Right electorally? Or is just any speaker doomed to be a total and complete hostage of Freedom Caucus whims, even if he is one of them at heart?
I don't think the dynamic you hypothesize here so articulately is crazy at all. I agree, safe bet is continued chaos. The freedom caucus has the loyalty and professionalism of a bag of snakes, so even if Jordan became speaker and tried to show some discipline, someone could stab (or bite?) him in the back at any moment. But in a way I think it probably depends on knowing what's in his heart, and I honestly don't know. No idea if he'd want to cash in his MAGA credibility to buy some running room to avoid obvious pitfalls like government shutdowns. My SENSE is he's just a maniac and would be a completely uncompromising asshole as speaker. But the theory holds together. It's kind of the same thinking that makes people worry about a future more-disciplined successor to Trump.
So what was the meaning behind the snark against Pelosi? Did I miss it? Was it that you thought she shouldn’t have been in California for the Feinstein memorial stuff?
Fortunately it turned out not to matter, but the issue is that when whip counts show high-stakes votes are expected to be very close, members are generally expected to drop everything and fly back for them. Including big deal events like weddings, funerals, etc. There are of course exceptions. Personal health issues, family deaths, etc. But I've covered many, many votes where members were scrambling to get home, dropping big family commitments, etc. And I was genuinely pretty surprised that Pelosi didn't do that, especially as a role-model type in her emeritus position. But it WAS of a piece with her earlier defense of Feinstein's decision to remain in office, and her apparently general view that this concern within the party about gerontocracy is just people being rude.
Again, all's well that ends well, her vote turned out not to be necessary. But I bet (actually, I know) some congressional Dems are a little cheesed off that she didn't make the round trip back to DC to cast a vote.
This stuff is all pretty interesting, but I think i'm more interested in your take on why "the border" is creeping back up the list of "important issues." Seeing a lot more articles in the mainstream media - obviously Fox and right wing media are boosting. If i understand correctly, border crossings are up, Dems in NY and Illinois and elsewhere are also complaining. Do you think right-wing media is raising the salience here, or is this something more? Feels extremely convenient. What can democrats do to either - address the issue or change the subject? Surely an actual immigration reform compromise with the GOP is never going to happen - something like path to citizenship for some subset, beefed up enforcement, etc etc.
I don't think Republicans can exactly toggle this on and off at will; they need some tethering to reality to make it stick in the media. That's why they liked the far-off caravans so much. And I agree, these Republicans like the issue too much to ever cede it by cutting a legislative deal with Dems. On the other hand, the GOP record of demagoguing immigration for electoral gains is very mixed. I think Dems should resolve a) not to be scared by the Republican panic routine and b) figure out their own ways to set media narratives. Instead of burping up responses about the border from a defensive posture, they can try to make political journalists interested in other things. Not a perfect solution, but better than the status quo.
You know what would help? If the political media actually told the truth that it’s all political gamesmanship with the GOP. That there is comprehensive reform legislation waiting to be addressed but it is too big a wedge issue (and a great lazy story for the media) for them to actually agree on a solution. Instead it’s “Congress stalemate” blah blah blah with dire pictures and somber tsk tsking critiques.
Not just Dems in Illinois & NY, it's everyone. In Chicago, we're getting 4-5 busloads of immigrants many days. The Feds are being blamed for it, but I thought it was the Texas governor doing the bussing. That seems to have been lost in the media reporting. Why can't buses go to other cities? Spread it out. Maybe if the federal government takes charge of this and spreads these immigrants out over the country there wouldn't be such a problem, though I think that's what the Republicans want, why they're doing it this way.
I suppose I"m unlikely to have to wait long for discussion of this topic, Biden wants to restart building the wall. I'm sure this will mollify the conservative screeching. No clue whether it will actually help or hurt. Seems pretty silly to me, but what do i know? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/05/us/biden-border-wall-waiver.html
Without having yet done any reporting on the issue (pretty big caveat!) this sounds like some too-clever-by-half strategist scheme to outbuild Trump and then mock him for it, a la INFRASTRUCTURE WEEK.
i'll be interested to see what the reporting bears out. what you said seems likely, but so also does 1) biden just telling DHS to do whatever they want to address the issue and/or 2) biden believing it's a good idea!
The Guardian recently had reporting on the serious right-wing call for a "Red Caesar," on the grounds that American democracy is too rotted at present, and requires a king/tyrant (e.g. Trump). Hillsdale College and the Claremont Institute are both promoting this. Given the truth of the rot premise (e.g. Trump), is it time to seriously consider a "Blue Caesar"? Would that it were not. But if the musical chairs of democracy are to stop -- as the House has now stopped -- should we not be sure we are in the seats?
I agree with Spence entirely, and would only add a couple things:
1. Liberals would attitudinally and culturally...ill equipped doesn't quite describe it... more like unable to impose authoritarian rule, even if liberal elites decided to give it a try.
2. That doesn't mean they couldn't or shouldn't embrace procedural hardball to retrofit the democracy so it isn't vulnerable to right-wing authoritarianism. That's filibuster abolition, court reform, democracy reform, and so on. That's the direction we should want to go.
Missed the AMA but it was fun reading it back! My only real question is something I figure you’ll get around to in a column anyway. Is there any downside to Dems just sounding the fascism alarm? I mean Trump literally just talked about immigrants “poisoning the blood” of our country, and Project 2025 is just...THERE. In black and white. Seems to me the only people who would be offended by the word are the people who were always going to vote for Trump anyway.
The statement from Capitol police makes it seem like THEY think he just got confused by signage and made an embarrassing mistake. As you say, then McCarthypocalypse happened and seems like that has eclipsed it. But even if it resurfaces, I'd put some money on it not going anywhere, because Bowman has evidence on his side that he did nothing malicious.
Thanks for the clarification. That’s what I thought you meant when I first read it, but then I wasn’t sure.
I was listening to the radio from my Berkeley dorm room when I heard that Mascone was shot, and Feinstein first entered my awareness. And my feelings about both her and Pelosi have been extremely mixed. Happy to see women leaders. Not happy to see them amass power for power’s sake and “decorum,” as opposed to the good of the country. And really irked at their not knowing when to step down. It seems Feinstein’s insistence (or her staff’s) on running for reelection is continuing to have consequences, even in her death.
Go Bears!
You and I are of one mind about all of this stuff. I didn't come to my Pelosi skepticism easily. I was (and, up to a certain point remain) a HUGE admirer of hers. It was like breathing fresh air when she became speaker after six years of Bush (and many years of Gingrich et al before then). At the time, she was the best imaginable speaker: Of all the candidates, the most progressive, of all the progressives, the most effective. But between some level of institutional capture and being a fish out of water when a goon like Trump became president, it just became undeniable to me that (vote counting and legislative abilities aside) she didn't have the right bearing for the moment. I say that understanding she remains an unalloyed hero to many; but I think holding a bit of distance and a touch of iconoclasm are healthy.
Wow, Pelosi could do math and knew how a bill gets made. Talk about damning with faint praise. After watching the shitshows that have been House GOP led majorities, this is the best you can muster.
You know maybe if so many lazy or purist Dems and lefties (God forbid they would associate with the Dem party) actually came out to vote consistently over the past 23 years, this country would be in a completely different place. You all want the Dems to burn the place down because you think, oh that will show the GOP. Harry Reed changed the Senate rules so Obama’s judiciary picks could make it through GOP obstruction, and to this day he is still excoriated in the press (see both sides break the rules) and among progressives when RW GOP judges get through.
If you don’t think the press’s constant hammering on Dems hasn’t had an effect you aren’t paying attention.
There is a time and a place for loyal opposition. This isn’t it. In addition to keeping her caucus together and passing historic legislation by the slimmest of margins (oh right it wasn’t the exact legislation you all wanted), she was the lone voice--and the lone woman--who stood up to Trump and called him out during a full cabinet meeting at the WH. But nah. She just doesn’t get it.
All worthy topics, but I’ve been thinking about what happens after Thanksgiving, after which we won’t have a functioning government for the following 15 months.
(More of a comment than a question, etc, etc...)
This concerns me, too. Power abhors a vacuum, and paralyzed Republicans (which = paralyzed Congress) is very bad. How will the power vacuum be filled?
The nightmare scenario goes this way. I expect that Gaetz and the hostage takers will only allow new leadership to ascend if they promise to shut it down when this CR expires.
New leadership (Scalise or Jordan most likely) will demand a ransom price to reopen that Biden and the Senate Dems will never pay (hopefully!) and we’ll be at a stalemate for the remainder of the term.
Rs in Biden districts will be pressured to cut a deal with Dems, but that pressure will pale in comparison to the “Why won’t Biden / Schumer cut a deal with Republicans ?!?” mantra that will dominate the discourse. So the at-risk Rs will not only stay home, but they will exact precisely zero pressure on Jordan / Scalise to moderate their demands.
Because there are no R moderates. And because helping T avoid Justice is the prime directive.
And there we will sit until January 2025 when we either have a Republic or we don’t.
I have no crystal ball here, but I think the incentives point more clearly in the direction of a "consensus" speaker (that is, a Problem Solver-type Republican or an old-timer on the periphery of power like Tom Cole) than a MAGA-aligned speaker or even, like, Steve Scalise. And it's for the reasons you say. Any Republican who can get within a vote or two of 218 *Republican* votes is going to be someone unable to make basic commitments or answer basic questions: Will you shut the government down? Will you allow a vote on Ukraine aid? Was the 2020 election stolen? And their inability to answer those questions satisfactorily is gonna push that handful of vulnerable Republicans away.
Of course, things could get VERY messy. But none of the endgames are obvious, and the least-bad endgame seems a little likelier to me than, say, a Jim Jordan speakership (let alone a Trump speakership).
That certainly is the non-nightmare scenario - and I don't have a view on which is more likely. But the one I laid out - no Speaker and thus no functioning US Gvt for an extended period of time - is on the table, right? At least, I think it is.
So, if the difference between Door No. 1 and Door No. 2 comes down to the "reasonable" Rs concluding that they can't install a Speaker with only R votes and that they have to secure votes from Jeffries/Dems, I'm gonna be fully clenched until it actually happens. Because I have absolutely no faith in them to do the right thing.
(Been enjoying this new home of yours, Brian. Congrats and good luck. We need your voice.)
Howdy folks, I have arrived for Thursday's AMA.
This was fun. Gotta step away for a bit, but if you have followups or want to splash around here a bit more, I'll try to reconnect a bit later.
Historically and globally we have seen democracies weakened or disappeared by the repeated traits of a charismatic populist causing partisan divides; of all political opposition, media, courts, and bureaucracies being labeled as enemies and traitors; of campaigns based on grievance and greed rather than policy; with the traditional unwritten norms of civility and tolerance within the government ignored; free and fair elections stifled before (gerrymandering), during (disenfranchisement), and after (vote counting); packing of the courts; corrupting economic influence on officials and policies; diminished accountability within institutional checks and balances; and more. All these warning signs are in play and growing within the U.S. today. Coup d'etats are rarely violent in our era. The demise of democracy can, and has, come almost imperceptibly slow and gradually. Will American democracy be able to survive the trend if the "leaders" continue such foolish, personally aggrandizing behavior rather than doing the truly hard work to save it?
Unsatisfying answer for you Judith: Maybe.
I agree with what I believe is the thrust of your concluding note, that Democratic and liberal-institutional leaders (hobbled as they may be by the Kyrsten Sinemas and #bothsides journalists of the world) are not bringing their A game to the democracy fight. (That's a big part of why Off Message exists.)
But: they're also not completely botching it AND our homegrown authoritarians are off putting to most people (even if a disturbingly large minority thrills to them).
Add it all up and I think there's probably still a "muddle through" path to saving U.S. democracy. But it's fraught, and we'd be better off with knife fighters.
Now what happens?
That’s the question.
Hi MAP! Great question. I did my best in some of these other replies. Short version: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(Longer versions more interesting though.)
It’s all about how hot and how long the fire will burn and how high the flames get. And how Americans respond. They think they will have Dems over a barrel unless they give in to their demands. I think the likes of Jeffries and--dare I say her name? Pelosi--will outmaneuver them. But then you guys don’t think that’s really success anyway. You seem to want total victory just like the MAGAs.
What are your thoughts about framing these “democracy in peril” stories as the exact desired outcome of Russian interference in our elections? There seems to be a through-line between these MAGA-made democracy destabilizing events and Russia wanting to point out the problems with American democracy-which is exactly why they started the troll farms in 2015. We are dealing with the fallout of a foreign attack whenever I see headlines like today’s NYTimes “To the World, McCarthy’s Exit Is Just Another Example of U.S. Disarray”
Hi Tyler. I'm not 100 percent sure I understand the question, but let me lay out a few thoughts on the general topic:
*In most democracies, the ousting of a legislative or parliamentary leader isn't evidence of democracy failing, it's evidence of democracy working.
*The U.S. system is strange in ways that may protract this leadership vacuum (the speaker is selected by the whole House, not the ruling party) but at the end of the day McCarthy basically just lost a no-confidence vote.
*Republicans, with their tiny majority, have three options: They can accept what seems to be reality and make a power-sharing arrangement that will still be favorable to them, they can get it together and find a speaker who, like Nancy Pelosi, can maintain the confidence of a slender majority, or they can leave the power vacuum in place and take whatever hits that entails come election time. Either way: still democracy!
*We can't stop foreign propaganda from portraying democracy in its messiness as democracy in crisis. But we do have a democratic crisis here in the U.S., and my strong sense is that it will only be overcome if the small-d democratic majority understands it as such—and in that regard "democracy in peril" stories probably work in the majority's favor.
To what extent do you think Russia’s influence campaign has made American style democracy appear more chaotic and untenable? In other words, did Russia’s support of Trump as a chaos agent succeed in destabilizing democracy overall? Even the speaker fight can be traced back to those Russia-supported MAGA forces. Those elements were always there in American politics, but thinking about the Russian influence as an overt attack on our democracy is helpful to a certain degree.
Oh, yeah, I mean it was a huge coup. Huge payoff. Even if Trump had lost, it would’ve been an extremely high return on subterfuge-investment. The damage has been immense and will be lasting. And it may be the but-for reason we ended up in a speakership crisis—we’ll never know. But I tend to think you can explain it all with 1) republicans have been highly fractious for a long time and 2) ended up with a teeny tiny majority. That could’ve happened in a much better functioning democracy, too.
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for your response!
What do you think are the chances that Democrats hold the US Senate in 2024? Ultimately, these “historic” developments matter less than that, right?
(And thank you for the creation of OffMessage, as a kindred spirit!)
It's gonna be very, very tough. Sorry to say. But Dems are blessed with terribly unpopular nemeses, so it's possible.
That they are. Thank you.
I have many questions.
If I had had to bet before Gaetz filed his motion, I would have bet on Dems voting "present" and keeping McCarthy in the chair without receiving any particular concessions, basically on a lesser-of-evils theory. I didn;t believe until I saw the Whip guidance for a yes vote on the motion to vacate that they were actually going to kick him out. All things considered, I think this was a worthwhile risk for Dems to take - the model where Democrats do what needs to be done (eg, fund the government) and the GOP extracts a political price for them doing so is not sustainable.
Are you surprised? Do you think refusing to throw McCarthy a lifeline was the right move? Do you expect a long battle over the speakership followed by a shutdown in November? Is Ukraine screwed?
Thanks Michael. In order:
1. I'm not surprised, though I also would not have been surprised if Dems had failed to maintain unity and saved McCarthy's hide. House Dems are pretty good in opposition.
2. I do think it was the right move. IF Republicans are ever going to regroup in a less reactionary formation, it's not gonna be through appeasement; and even if Dems and the public can never punish them enough to reform, it was the right move on basic dignity grounds, and dignity is a political winner. Standing up to people who sucker punch you is righteous as a matter of personal integrity AND good politics. Nobody likes a pushover (says someone who remembers swiftboating).
Let's say Trump really angles for the Speaker gavel. Could he feasibly get the votes and how do we know some of the key ways he'd weaponize the position?
Hi Matt:
1. VERY unlikely but I wouldn't rule it out, for many of the same reasons I have a hard time seeing Speaker Jordan or even Speaker Scalise. (More in tomorrow's newsletter.)
2. Fortunately the debt limit is off the table. But, e.g., I presume he'd shut the government down and aim to leave it shut unless and until DOJ dropped charges against him. Then we'd have to ask: would a handful of vulnerable House Rs line up with Dems to force the government back open. Maybe? Probably? But also, some of them would have just voted to make Trump speaker, so maybe not.
There's be a lot of petty revenge, too. No codels (official trips abroad) for Dems, no State of the Union address, no disaster relief for blue states. It would be extremely ugly. But (on the plus side?) I think Biden would start to pull away in polls.
According to Bloomberg and other news reports, current GOP rules prohibit anyone indicted for a felony with a 2 year+ sentence can serve as Speaker (of course they can change the rules)
Yep! If it wouldn't be such a fiasco, I'd be morbidly curious to watch Republicans flail their way through making Trump speaker.
One of the safest bets you can makes is that it can always get worse in American politics, particularly in the House, and most especially on the right. It's like playing with house money. And yet, a small part of me wonders, counterintuitively, if can get better, both politically for Democrats, and substantively for House functionality, at least for must-pass stuff, with more of a loon, like Jim Jordan, serving as speaker. I realize this isn't a good bet, however, in my mind, McCarthy's original sin with the far right is that he is of the pre-Trump era; he just looks like an "establishment" guy, and because of that vibe, was never going to have a long leash to conduct political business, even on must-pass legislation. It never mattered what concessions he made to the far right, because ANYTHING he did that wasn't exactly what they wanted was cause to label him a sell out and ship him out, because he wasn't one of them, at least in their eyes.
Josh Marshall of TPM has articulated well the dynamic on the right, in the House since Boehner, which is that the veneer of an establishment guy keeps the House Freedom Caucus and their ilk in a nice little sweet spot; they know intuitively that their vibe is disliked by a majority of Americans, so they don't have to put their faces in front of cameras as the leaders of the chaos, and yet, they functionally control what happens in the broader caucus. It offers a level of plausible deniability on their part for the American public, in that the outward face of the party is still "normal", but the outcomes are decidedly not, and they know that the American public has trouble with assigning blame to the right places.
And yet, my sense is that as the years have rolled along, the Freedom Caucus and their ilk has continued to get higher and higher on their own supply, convinced that they actually should be the face of the party, for better electoral outcomes. History would suggest in this moment that "David Duke without the Baggage" Steve Scalise would be the favorite here, to continue the Figurehead-Hostage Speakership dynamic that's been in place for well over a decade now. And that probably is what will happen, though I do think it's a lot less certain than a lot of others seem to think.
But as it relates to outcomes, both politically and substantively, if Jordan were to win the speakership race, is it a fantasy to think that, because of his history being a far-right-bomb-thrower, decidedly hailing from the mold of the Freedom Caucus, that he'd be both given a longer leash to pass the must-pass, keep-the-government-open stuff, while at the same time, further sullying the opinion of the Right electorally? Or is just any speaker doomed to be a total and complete hostage of Freedom Caucus whims, even if he is one of them at heart?
I don't think the dynamic you hypothesize here so articulately is crazy at all. I agree, safe bet is continued chaos. The freedom caucus has the loyalty and professionalism of a bag of snakes, so even if Jordan became speaker and tried to show some discipline, someone could stab (or bite?) him in the back at any moment. But in a way I think it probably depends on knowing what's in his heart, and I honestly don't know. No idea if he'd want to cash in his MAGA credibility to buy some running room to avoid obvious pitfalls like government shutdowns. My SENSE is he's just a maniac and would be a completely uncompromising asshole as speaker. But the theory holds together. It's kind of the same thinking that makes people worry about a future more-disciplined successor to Trump.
So what was the meaning behind the snark against Pelosi? Did I miss it? Was it that you thought she shouldn’t have been in California for the Feinstein memorial stuff?
Thanks for asking Gwynne!
Fortunately it turned out not to matter, but the issue is that when whip counts show high-stakes votes are expected to be very close, members are generally expected to drop everything and fly back for them. Including big deal events like weddings, funerals, etc. There are of course exceptions. Personal health issues, family deaths, etc. But I've covered many, many votes where members were scrambling to get home, dropping big family commitments, etc. And I was genuinely pretty surprised that Pelosi didn't do that, especially as a role-model type in her emeritus position. But it WAS of a piece with her earlier defense of Feinstein's decision to remain in office, and her apparently general view that this concern within the party about gerontocracy is just people being rude.
Again, all's well that ends well, her vote turned out not to be necessary. But I bet (actually, I know) some congressional Dems are a little cheesed off that she didn't make the round trip back to DC to cast a vote.
Maybe she didn’t fly back to DC because she knows how to count.
She couldn't possibly have had that good a reading on the Republican caucus.
This stuff is all pretty interesting, but I think i'm more interested in your take on why "the border" is creeping back up the list of "important issues." Seeing a lot more articles in the mainstream media - obviously Fox and right wing media are boosting. If i understand correctly, border crossings are up, Dems in NY and Illinois and elsewhere are also complaining. Do you think right-wing media is raising the salience here, or is this something more? Feels extremely convenient. What can democrats do to either - address the issue or change the subject? Surely an actual immigration reform compromise with the GOP is never going to happen - something like path to citizenship for some subset, beefed up enforcement, etc etc.
I don't think Republicans can exactly toggle this on and off at will; they need some tethering to reality to make it stick in the media. That's why they liked the far-off caravans so much. And I agree, these Republicans like the issue too much to ever cede it by cutting a legislative deal with Dems. On the other hand, the GOP record of demagoguing immigration for electoral gains is very mixed. I think Dems should resolve a) not to be scared by the Republican panic routine and b) figure out their own ways to set media narratives. Instead of burping up responses about the border from a defensive posture, they can try to make political journalists interested in other things. Not a perfect solution, but better than the status quo.
thanks! and btw, love this project so far - very refreshing
Thank you Ryan! Means a lot to hear that. Tell your friends and neighbors! We're off to a strong start, but have a ways to go.
You know what would help? If the political media actually told the truth that it’s all political gamesmanship with the GOP. That there is comprehensive reform legislation waiting to be addressed but it is too big a wedge issue (and a great lazy story for the media) for them to actually agree on a solution. Instead it’s “Congress stalemate” blah blah blah with dire pictures and somber tsk tsking critiques.
Not just Dems in Illinois & NY, it's everyone. In Chicago, we're getting 4-5 busloads of immigrants many days. The Feds are being blamed for it, but I thought it was the Texas governor doing the bussing. That seems to have been lost in the media reporting. Why can't buses go to other cities? Spread it out. Maybe if the federal government takes charge of this and spreads these immigrants out over the country there wouldn't be such a problem, though I think that's what the Republicans want, why they're doing it this way.
I suppose I"m unlikely to have to wait long for discussion of this topic, Biden wants to restart building the wall. I'm sure this will mollify the conservative screeching. No clue whether it will actually help or hurt. Seems pretty silly to me, but what do i know? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/05/us/biden-border-wall-waiver.html
Without having yet done any reporting on the issue (pretty big caveat!) this sounds like some too-clever-by-half strategist scheme to outbuild Trump and then mock him for it, a la INFRASTRUCTURE WEEK.
i'll be interested to see what the reporting bears out. what you said seems likely, but so also does 1) biden just telling DHS to do whatever they want to address the issue and/or 2) biden believing it's a good idea!
The Guardian recently had reporting on the serious right-wing call for a "Red Caesar," on the grounds that American democracy is too rotted at present, and requires a king/tyrant (e.g. Trump). Hillsdale College and the Claremont Institute are both promoting this. Given the truth of the rot premise (e.g. Trump), is it time to seriously consider a "Blue Caesar"? Would that it were not. But if the musical chairs of democracy are to stop -- as the House has now stopped -- should we not be sure we are in the seats?
I agree with Spence entirely, and would only add a couple things:
1. Liberals would attitudinally and culturally...ill equipped doesn't quite describe it... more like unable to impose authoritarian rule, even if liberal elites decided to give it a try.
2. That doesn't mean they couldn't or shouldn't embrace procedural hardball to retrofit the democracy so it isn't vulnerable to right-wing authoritarianism. That's filibuster abolition, court reform, democracy reform, and so on. That's the direction we should want to go.
Missed the AMA but it was fun reading it back! My only real question is something I figure you’ll get around to in a column anyway. Is there any downside to Dems just sounding the fascism alarm? I mean Trump literally just talked about immigrants “poisoning the blood” of our country, and Project 2025 is just...THERE. In black and white. Seems to me the only people who would be offended by the word are the people who were always going to vote for Trump anyway.
Anything new with the Jamaal Bowman "scandal"? Or has it been eclipsed by all the other events that you mentioned?
The statement from Capitol police makes it seem like THEY think he just got confused by signage and made an embarrassing mistake. As you say, then McCarthypocalypse happened and seems like that has eclipsed it. But even if it resurfaces, I'd put some money on it not going anywhere, because Bowman has evidence on his side that he did nothing malicious.
Hey. Liked your Friday omnibus column quite a bit better than this stuff.
Sorry to hear. Friday omnibus lives on, though, and after the launch period it'll be the free offering, everything else will fall behind the paywall.