I was scrolling through various news apps last Wednesday when I came across a partial headline that read, “Speaker Mike Johnson stands down….” I made a mental note to come back to that after I had scanned the other news heads.
When I did remember to revisit the full story several hours later, the partial headline was no longer there, though other stories had appeared about the House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) pulling the six-month stopgap continuing appropriations bill for lack of votes, which I suspect the original misleading headline was all about.
The Speaker was not standing down as Speaker; he was standing down from his seemingly iron-clad insistence on bringing the bill to the floor without the votes to pass it. But it was already apparent that at least seven Republicans had publicly vowed they would vote against the bill. With their narrow majority, Republicans could not afford to lose more than four votes if all Democrats voted together against the measure.
That awkward headline, however, triggered a memory of last spring, when there were rumblings in House GOP ranks about a likely vote on a motion to “vacate the chair,” that is, to remove Johnson as Speaker. On May 8, the House voted 359-43 to table the vacate motion offered by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).
It was a reversal of the successful attempt last October by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) to remove Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as Speaker over disagreements on a continuing appropriations bill. In that instance, the House voted 216-210 to vacate the chair, with eight Republicans and all 208 voting Democrats in favor. It wasn’t until three weeks later that Johnson was elected as McCarthy’s replacement.
Will the fate of the money bill this month again trigger a renewed effort by some Republicans to oust Johnson as Speaker if he proposes a compromise they oppose? Such a putsch would make little sense with time running out on the 118th Congress. It will certainly be a matter for discussion when the 119th Congress convenes in January. Regardless of whether Republicans retain majority control, there will likely be highly competitive races for every GOP leadership post.
Republican leadership fights in the House are frequent, whether they are in the majority or minority. Think of the fates of former Speakers John Boehner (R-Ohio), Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), and, of course, McCarthy. Perhaps the die was cast back in 1910 when powerful Speaker “Uncle Joe” Cannon (R-Ill.) was stripped of most of his powers by his own Republican colleagues after just four terms in the chair. Speakers may enter the office with a gavel in hand, but they are always aware there is also a permanent target on their backs.
Have newly-elected Republican leaders learned anything from their predecessors? They certainly talk a good game about the changes they’ll make: more deference to the party conference in talking through issues; more independence for committees and their chairs; more open floor debates and amendments; and, generally, more “regular order” (whatever that may mean at this point). Once in office, though, each Speaker soon learns there were reasons their predecessors acted as they did: to get things done.
It’s difficult to retain control of a raucous caucus without tough leadership from the top when it’s urgently needed to keep the Congress and country in working order. You can’t please all of the party members all of the time. With a slim majority, a unified opposition party, and volatile polarization — all simmering under an overheated dome — regular blow-ups are bound to occur.
One additional complicating element is the effect of divided-party government. With the presidency held by one party and control of the two houses of Congress divided between parties, it is all the more difficult to come to agreement on most issues. That’s especially the case when it comes down to the money crunch at the end of a fiscal year.
Back in the mid-20th century, the senator from my home state, Everett McKinley Dirksen (R-Ill.) used to say, “A million here and a million there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.” Today he would have to revise and extend his remarks upward into the billions and even trillions.
Continuing and omnibus appropriations bills tend to focus the mind on just how much larger and costly the government has become. And objectors to this crumbling of the country’s fiscal house have become much louder. Brace yourself for the fiscal new year — no additional noisemakers are required.
Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran who served as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is the author of “Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial” (2000); and, “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays” (2018).
