The current turmoil in the House of Representatives is the culmination of a dispute that has been festering in Congress since the Class of 2010 was elected. That was the year of the “tea party” wave and the backlash against the Affordable Care Act. However, to fully understand it requires a look back to the last Democratic Congressional majority.

The Democrats took control of Congress back in 2006, and took even bigger majorities (and the White House) in 2008. Then, on July 7, 2009, Al Franken was seated in the Senate after an extended post-election legal contest. He became the 60th Democratic vote, creating a rare filibuster-proof majority. This, combined with a large majority in the House and Barack Obama in the White House, made a number of otherwise unlikely left-of-center legislative initiatives suddenly viable.

To understand how unique a circumstance that was, one has only to note that never in American history has the Republican Party had a filibuster-proof Senate majority. The supermajority was mostly theoretical for a time because of the illness of Senator Edward Kennedy (but real when his appointed successor, Paul Kirk, served for fourteen weeks).

The most controversial piece of legislation advanced during this period was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The backlash not only ended the Democrats’ Senate supermajority (when Republican Scott Brown won the special election to replace Kennedy), it also produced the largest Republican Congressional majority in many decades. Republicans netted 63 seats, a historic victory by any measure. Many of the members elected that year are organized today, with a few allies, as the “Freedom Caucus.”

Many Republicans ran that year promising to fight the Washington establishment, repeal the Affordable Care Act, reform entitlements, and balance the federal budget. Today, those members and their allies are increasingly frustrated at their inability to accomplish the goals they campaigned on, despite majorities in the House and Senate. They are cognizant of the filibuster and the veto, which stand in their way, but they believe the weapons in their own arsenal should make the contest at least an even match. Many of them are pressing their Senate counterparts to go “nuclear” and eliminate the legislative filibuster, as Senator Reid eliminated it for non-Supreme Court judicial nominees. Above all, they believe Congress has the power of the purse–and they want to use it.

There is nothing disingenuous about the Freedom Caucus. They firmly believe in the power of their ideas and the rectitude of their views. They want Republican leaders who will fight strenuously for those ideas before even contemplating compromise. They believe the fight itself will highlight their issues and educate the public, winning people over in the process. It is for that reason that they are infuriated by legislative chess players who look three steps forward on the board and say, “We can’t make that move; it will put us in checkmate.”

Checkmate, for Members like John Boehner who remember 1995, is a government shutdown. Freedom Caucus Members find that thinking wrong-headed and even cowardly. They dream of Republican leaders who are articulate and courageous enough to fight valiantly and persuasively for conservative ideas, using each showdown as an opportunity to educate and persuade the public.

There is now a profound mistrust between Republican leadership and the Freedom Caucus (and their respective outside allies). The Freedom Caucus’s critics believe a group of 40 or 50 members should not be allowed to be the tail that wags the dog. They are a minority in the Republican Conference and a fairly small minority in the House of Representatives. Many Republican pragmatists believe that Freedom Caucus members (and groups like Heritage Action and the Club for Growth) see political and monetary benefit in promoting themselves as true conservatives at the expense of their colleagues. The Freedom Caucus believes the Leadership pays only lip-service to conservative ideals and is content to lose battles to keep the machinery of power humming.

The pragmatists believe the Freedom Caucus is playing with fire: damaging the party’s brand and endangering the Republicans’ majority. The Freedom Caucus believes the majority isn’t worth keeping if it isn’t going to be used to accomplish the things they came to Washington to do.

The current turmoil in the House Republican Conference is a direct result of these two conflicting worldviews. Speaker Boehner’s retirement announcement seemed, for a few days, to be the culmination of this conflict. Many Republicans hoped that Kevin McCarthy, the cheerful heir apparent, would have a fresh start and find new ways to unite the Republican team. Now, it seems clear that Boehner’s announcement was merely a prologue. Today, it appears there is no willing Republican who can successfully unite the Conference and become Speaker. A cable news commentator said on Thursday that “no sentient mammal” would want the job.

The latest reports are that Republicans’ efforts to draft Paul Ryan may be working. One way or another, there will ultimately be a new Speaker. It appears, however, that long-festering arguments among Republicans will now, at long last, have to be dealt with. That could be a very good thing for the GOP. The jury is still out as to whether it will be.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Gabe Neville Gabe Neville

Gabe Neville, a non-lawyer, helps Covington’s clients navigate the complexities of federal policymaking.

Gabe helps clients in various sectors understand individual policymakers and the legislative and regulatory tools they can use to advance their agendas. Using an intimate knowledge of the government gained…

Gabe Neville, a non-lawyer, helps Covington’s clients navigate the complexities of federal policymaking.

Gabe helps clients in various sectors understand individual policymakers and the legislative and regulatory tools they can use to advance their agendas. Using an intimate knowledge of the government gained over a nearly twenty-year period as a Congressional staffer, he helps clients proactively engage the legislative and executive branches of government. He also advises clients on responding to congressional inquiries and invitations to testify.

Gabe joined Covington after nearly two decades as a senior congressional staffer, most recently serving as chief of staff for Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Pitts (R, PA-16). He previously worked for the Pennsylvania state legislature, and managed several successful political campaigns. After managing Congressman Pitts’ first campaign for Congress, he served the congressman as press secretary and then as chief of staff. In that role, he advised the congressman on a wide range of issues, with special attention to the range of health, energy, and telecommunications issues that come before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Other issues Gabe engaged in range from agriculture to human rights.

As chief of staff to a leading conservative, Gabe also developed deep relationships within the conservative movement. He frequently chaired meetings of the Values Action Team (VAT) and attended meetings of the Republican Study Committee (RSC). Gabe continues to work with these and other right-of-center organizations in Congress, including the House Freedom Caucus.

While on Capitol Hill, Gabe worked closely with the members and staff of the Health Subcommittee while Congressman Pitts chaired that panel. The subcommittee oversees a wide range of government health programs and issues, including public health; hospital construction; mental health and research; biomedical programs and health protection in general, including public and private health insurance; food and drugs; and drug abuse. The subcommittee has jurisdiction over federal agencies responsible for public health programs, regulation, and administration. They include the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and others.

Read more about Gabe NevilleEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Bill Wichterman Bill Wichterman

Bill Wichterman is a non-lawyer Senior Advisor in Covington’s Public Policy practice.

Prior to joining Covington, Bill served as Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and as the President’s personal liaison to the conservative movement.  Before serving in the White House, he held…

Bill Wichterman is a non-lawyer Senior Advisor in Covington’s Public Policy practice.

Prior to joining Covington, Bill served as Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and as the President’s personal liaison to the conservative movement.  Before serving in the White House, he held a number of senior staff-level positions on Capitol Hill, including as Policy Advisor to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Chief of Staff to Congressman Joe Pitts and Congressman Bill Baker.

Bill also has inside experience in congressional and presidential campaigns, including every presidential campaign from 2000 to 2016, usually as a senior advisor. He remains active in national Republican politics.

Bill has more than 35 years of experience in policy-making and is skilled at developing and implementing comprehensive strategies—including the media, opinion-makers, and interest groups—to accomplish the policy goals of his clients. He calls upon his nearly two decades of government service and extensive knowledge of the policy-making and political structures in Washington to counsel Fortune 500 clients in various industries on a wide range of matters related to semiconductor technology, patent policy, trade controls, CFIUS, foreign relations, antitrust, and cybersecurity, among others.

Read more about Bill WichtermanEmail
Show more Show less