The current state of the Republican party is a prime example of why America no longer needs a two-party system. At the beginning of its inaugural session, the 118th Congress was racked with divisions that have not been problematic in past sessions. Instead of partisan bickering, the Republican caucus of the US House of Representatives spent days battling itself, taking 15 votes to confirm Representative McCarty as the Speaker of the House. In doing so it catered to its extreme minority and allowed for division within its own ranks to destroy the institution it had been charged with leading.
Such is the problem with a two-party political system: loyalty to party quite often supersedes loyalty to country.
Instead of working as the unifier for the House, Speaker McCarthy spent his tenure in office as the public whipping boy for his caucus. Unable to reach across the aisle for fear of losing his job, speaker McCarthy instead held to the extreme demands coming from the extreme minority. He destroyed any trust that the Democratic caucus may have had in him by double dealing, making promises to members of the Democratic caucus while categorically denying and breaking those promises in dealing with his own caucus. All this finally came to blows when the former Speaker had to reach across the aisle and make a deal that would keep the government running temporarily while a budget deal could be struck that could be passed by both houses of Congress and get signed by the President.
Speaker McCarthy paid a heavy price for such an act of patriotism. The extreme minority of his caucus publicly labeled him a traitor, lambasted him for betraying his promises to them and then called for and subsequently ousted him on the basis that McCarthy was unfit to lead the House, let alone his caucus. Such an act brought the House to a complete standstill, preventing any legislative actions from being taken until a new Speaker could be elected.
Initially it looked like the Republican caucus would be able to replace the Speaker with relative speed, having identified two candidates: Representative Steve Scalise, and Representative Jim Jordan. In their first internal vote, Representative Scalise looked to be the clear winner with 104 votes to Jim Jordan’s 99 votes. In past sessions, the caucus would have naturally fell in line and supported Representative Scalise, and in true form, this session, the tables moved so quickly that, seeing the writing on the wall, Representative Scalise pulled his name from the nomination before a formal vote could be taken.
It is telling that Democrat Representative Hakeem Jeffries, received more votes for Speaker than Representative Jordan did.
Again, in past sessions the caucus would have likely then fallen in line and support Representative Jordan, that turned out to be too much to ask as well. Mainline members of the Republican caucus declined to support Representative Jordan on account of their desire to not allow a member of the extreme minority to take a leadership role within the caucus, much less be third in the line of succession. Representative Jordan continues to move forward with his bid to become Speaker despite the lack of support.
The Democratic caucus could have easily prevented this situation entirely by voting to preserve Speaker McCarthy.
Going so far as to blatantly state that the Republican caucus has no desire to create a coalition government with the Democratic caucus, Representative Jordan has begun a pressure campaign on those of his caucus that refuse to support him. Members of the Republican caucus not supportive of Representative Jordan have reported receiving numerous calls from their constituents encouraging them to support Representative Jordan, and others have reported being threatened with being "primaried" when it comes time for them to get re-elected.
The Republican caucus is in chaos, without a leader, the House will be unable to tackle the myriad of tasks set before it, most important of which is the requirement for the House to draft and pass a budget for the current fiscal year. From where I sit, there does not seem to be a desire to lead, only a desire of the more extreme members of the caucus to speak loudly and throw a temper tantrum whenever they don’t get their way.
I define leadership as the ability to understand when to lead and when to follow, the ability to understand when a hill should be ceded and when one should stand their ground, when a hill is worth “dying on.” Leadership is the ability to compromise, and the ability to set aside the personal when the needs of the group require it.
It is telling that Democrat Representative Hakeem Jeffries, received more votes for speaker than Representative Jordan did. It is telling that the reason the 22 Republican representatives that did not vote for Representative Jordan, did not vote for Representative Jefferies is not because they simply didn’t like either person. Instead, it is purely because Representative Jeffries is aligned with the wrong party.
This is not to say that the Democratic caucus is without fault, my focus on the Republican focus is purely due to their current status as the majority party in the House. The Democratic caucus could have easily prevented this situation entirely by voting to preserve Speaker McCarthy. In doing so, the caucus would have signaled to the extreme members of the Republican party that they held solidarity with their mainstream Republican colleagues. Instead, a combination of party politics and distrust led to the Democrats sitting back and watching the Republicans rip themselves asunder. Failing to take account of the fact that their inability to reach across the aisle will contribute to the pending budget crisis just as much, if not more that the Republican infighting.
Such is the problem with a two-party political system: loyalty to party quite often supersedes loyalty to country. What we need is to eliminate the two parties, we need to establish candidates who run based on their values, not their party. We need candidates who will vote the way that we, their constituents, want them to vote, not the way their party wants them to vote. If we were to completely remove party affiliation as a factor in many of the policy discussions being had by our elected leadership, I would wager that more would be accomplished and our national, state, and local governments would be much more efficient.
I will need to think about this, and you have given us plenty to think about. I do understand the logic here. Well done.