While choosing a speaker is nominally a ministerial function handled in the first few minutes of a legislative session, Americans were riveted last week watching the U.S. House of Representatives choose its new Speaker of the House: U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy [R-Calif.].
Although members of the Republican Party hold a majority in the House, they do so by only four votes, so if they are to maintain that majority to pass legislation or elect a leader, they can little afford dissenters if all the members of the Democratic Party are united against them.
As most Americans who were watching the proceedings last week can attest, a block of 20 Republican lawmakers who refer to themselves as the Freedom Caucus refused to back McCarthy.
The dissenters included three from Arizona — U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs [R-District 5]; U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar [R-District 9], who represented Cottonwood until the 2020 redistricting; and newly elected U.S. Rep. Eli Crane [R-District 2], who represents Sedona, the Verde Valley and the northern and eastern side of our state.
Ironically, the Freedom Caucus was founded by former U.S. Rep. Justin Amash [L-Mich.], a former Republican who switched to the Libertarian Party in April 2020 and opted not to run later that year. Amash was on the House floor with lawmakers last week, floating the possibility of himself as a compromise candidate who would be dedicated to making the institution function rather than to holding the reins of power himself.
In the end, after 15 votes, McCarthy was able to persuade enough dissenters, and convince the remainder to vote “present,” essentially nullifying their numbers, to enable him to win the speakership, which he had failed to do twice before. He is not particularly well liked or respected even in his own party, but McCarthy nonetheless secured the role in part due to a leadership vacuum and in part because it is his “turn.”
Democracies suffer when leaders are elevated due to pecking order and their proximity to power rather than as a result of their vision, ideas or charisma.
Through negotiation and legislative maneuvering, McCarthy took the reins of power, but he has been dramatically weakened by the effort and will likely face major dissent from his party for the next two years.
That said, Republican legislation may pass the House, but will meet a roadblock in the Senate, where the Democrats have the majority, or face a Democratic president with the power of the veto. Consequently, we shouldn’t expect much legislation except for extremely bipartisan measures over the next two years until the 2024 election shakes up the board again and either Democrats or Republicans secure a firm majority.
Closer to home, the Arizona State Legislature has a razor-thin split, with Republicans maintaining a two-seat majority over Democrats in both the Arizona State House and Arizona State Senate. With Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs holding the power of veto, it’s unlikely state Republicans will be able to pass much of their legislation either, except for that which has the support of Democrats and Hobbs.
Map courtesy of Tilden76
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey — the recently-departed Republican who had his eyes on a higher office prior to his management of the COVID-19 pandemic upending his aspirations — nixed fringe allies in order to avoid alienating the vast majority of Arizona independents and moderates whose votes he would need to win a Senate seat.
Hobbs will be a stronger bulwark against this fringe, given her partisan ideology.
Split governance like this demonstrates the difficulty in legislating when partisan ideology has become more important than ideas or individual lawmakers.
The Founding Fathers intended that the diversity of thought within legislative bodies would be settled by moderate compromises everyone could live with, but the rise of the First Party System that took firm hold in the 1800 election set us on the path of partisan gridlock we’ve “enjoyed” ever since and see perpetuated within individual states down to the county level.
In Arizona, where municipal elections are supposedly nonpartisan and voters should pick the person over the party, many local lawmakers elevate partisan ideology above their obligations to govern.
Cities and towns are supposed to be too small for partisanship, and city council members should be speaking to residents on both sides of the aisle rather than demonizing folks based on their congressional preferences.
It’s disappointing to hear that local elected officials are happily demonizing a substantial minority in a city not based on what they think of local tax spending or road construction or zoning, but rather on who they voted to send to Congress — individuals who rarely, if ever, set foot in our city anyway.
All lawmakers are supposed to represent their constituents equally. We know that members of Congress and legislators simply don’t — the size of districts, campaign funding influenced by overgrown capitalism and the two-party system make such honest representation fantastical, better suited for fictions like “The West Wing” or “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”
We can still hope local officials do the right thing, shed their noxious party subjugation and try to represent their neighbors regardless of party registration.
