The broken GOP has a majority in the House in name only. It’s giving frightening new meaning to the old saw about politicians’ forming a circular firing squad.
Short answers: “yes.” Longer answer: “Yeah.”
in any case, this is the crux of it:
Republicans have the majority in the House, but it’s a majority in name only. In reality, the House Republicans are an amalgam of competing factions, from right to far-right to extremist, and party members genuinely loathe one another more than they dislike Democrats.
If we consider that the freedom caucus is in the process of splitting of and treat it as though it were a third party… then you would see that republicans don’t have a majority at all.
The problem is that neither does anybody else.
The ironic thing about all of this is that the Founding Fathers structured everything in such a way that this should have never been an issue at all. It was originally designed for all parties to vote on a speaker. Whether or not there were two parties, three parties, or 27 parties is irrelevant. The speaker was intended to be someone that all parties could agree on, not just the majority party.
It only got this way because tribal politics has taken over our entire political system, devolving into tribal warfare and an “us vs them” mentality. Compromise or even acknowledgement that the other side may have a valid point on anything is considered weakness and is not acceptable. It has reshaped both houses of Congress into a two-party system where one side is openly admitting they refuse to work with the other side because fuck you that’s why. The problem is that the two-party tribal warfare system cannot even begin to function when there are effectively three tribes digging in their heels, none with the defining majority, and each seeing the other two as adversaries.
Didn’t George Washington warn about political parties taking over and making things worse? Maybe he had something there.
They may have warned about it, but with FPTP, they designed a system that forces tribalism. So I guess good on him for seeing the issue they made, but less good that they opted to create it.
The ironic thing about all of this is that the Founding Fathers structured everything in such a way that this should have never been an issue at all. It was originally designed for all parties to vote on a speaker. Whether or not there were two parties, three parties, or 27 parties is irrelevant. The speaker was intended to be someone that all parties could agree on, not just the majority party.
How so? The structure has ‘majority wins’ and there’s nothing to compel the majority to vote for a candidate that ‘all parties agree on’, nor would that even make sense.
It only got this way because tribal politics has taken over our entire political system, devolving into tribal warfare and an “us vs them” mentality…
This may not be your intent, but this reads like a very elaborate "both sides’ argument, when it’s really clear that the pathological behavior here isn’t evenly distributed between the ‘tribes’.
If the roles were reversed, I’d be shocked if Democrats didn’t compromise and put in place a power-sharing agreement to allow the House to function.
How so? The structure has ‘majority wins’ and there’s nothing to compel the majority to vote for a candidate that ‘all parties agree on’, nor would that even make sense.
The structure wasn’t specifically designed with two parties. In fact, many of the founding fathers were against the idea of parties at all. It was designed to accomodate multiple parties.
Look at it this way. Let’s say the MAGA wing officially defects from the main GOP and forms its own party (which is essentially what’s happening in practice if not officially right now). We now would have three parties, none of which would actually have a majority. What are we supposed to do? Stand around and shrug for the next two years? Hold a WWE deathmatch to determine the winner? No. Eventually, they’re going to have to find one candidate that all parties can agree on. Maybe some moderate Republicans join Democrats in voting for Jeffries. Maybe some centrist Democrats break ranks and vote for a moderate Republican. Maybe the moderate Republicans just get worn out and vote for one of the crazies in MAGA. But when you have 3 parties trying to work in a system that was hijacked to accomodate only two parties, something’s got to give.
This may not be your intent, but this reads like a very elaborate "both sides’ argument, when it’s really clear that the pathological behavior here isn’t evenly distributed between the ‘tribes’.
I didn’t say it was, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s what happened.
If the roles were reversed, I’d be shocked if Democrats didn’t compromise and put in place a power-sharing agreement to allow the House to function.
They’re trying to get away from this because the Democrats have a reputation for caving in the end, and getting shafted for it. Look at what McCarthy just did to them. He worked with Dems to get a debt ceiling bill passed, and then reneged on the deal the nanosecond it became politically inconvenient for him. Multiple high-ranking Republicans are outright saying any deal that involves Democrats is off the table. Many are outright blaming Democrats for their own mess, and demanding that Democrats save them from themselves so they can go right back to shitting on Democrats.. McCarthy himself outright said that they know they’re supposed to be working with Democrats and that this is the way it was originally intended to function, but they just don’t want to.
Why the fuck would Democrats want to work with them if this is the way they’re going to be treated? Why the fuck would Democrats want to work with them when they outright say that this is the way they’ll treat Democrats anyway?
If Democrats caved (again) and entered into a power-sharing agreement, they immediately lose all leverage the minute that speaker is actually installed. There would be nothing stopping the Speaker from reneging on a deal the exact same way McCarthy did, and since they’re in the minority, any attempt at actually enforcing the agreement would just be voted down by the GOP. They’d collectively look like Charlie Brown as the GOP once again yanks the football away.
They don’t want to govern. What they want is to rule autocratically, and they’ll solve their infighting problems by the winning faction simply purging its enemies.
They want to rule, and if they don’t get to rule then they’re happy to burn everything to the ground so that other people don’t get what they want either.
And it doesn’t matter if those “other people” are Republicans, too.
They want small government. Small, weak and unable to defend itself.
No they don’t. There is nothing small about the government they want.
They will cut the government and not replace it with anything. They have no plan to improve the lives of the people that vote for them.
Their only plan is to rule not to help. They want power. By any means necessary. Destroying faith in our system of government and destroying checks and balances eventually leads to more power for the governing and less for the governed.
Like-minded conservative voters — small-dollar donors steeped in Fox News — bankroll the chaos agents
It’s an interesting concept, to think that it’s the small dollar donors enabling this. But I think that the real culprit here are the super large, dark money donors. You know, the ones that Republicans opened up the floodgates to as part of that Citizens United thing. Money is Speech, and all that.
I don’t think that when the Supreme Court made that ruling, they intended for it to be a conduit for direct foreign influence on politicians. But the independent, unaccountable political spending that Citizens United enables has to be funded from somewhere. And it’s trivially easy for these foreign sources to disguise their money trail to make things look legit. (Or, do you really think Bob Menendez is the only foreign agent in Congress?)
If you were a foreign power looking to neutralize the US Government, your best bet might be to use back channels to fund enough stubborn Congressmen to get them in office, and tell them to raise as much hell as they want to, and not compromise with anyone, because you will have their back.
yes. citizens unites is the worst thing we have politically. I would rid it above all other things as much of the rest would get resolved for the better by it not being a thing.
But that’s the thing, like with most of our country those massive donors aren’t evenly distributed amongst the party. The super super pacs seem to have settled into the people they felt most able to get their agenda done and left out the others and they have been working with literally a smaller budget from smaller donors and thus don’t feel as beholden to making the system, that isn’t working for them as much as their peers, keep working.
And then allowing money to speak and anyone with some money having a say just makes it worse and a thousand voices trying to be the loudest and the richest at the end of this road.
yes. many years ago.
Yes.
Yeah
Yep.
So, with that out of the way. How’s the weather for you guys?
Far too warm for my liking. I expect autumn to be cold.
Been freezing where I’m at. I’ll trade ya
Finally getting that autumn cold snap with the changing of leaves here in New England.
Also, Republicans are fucking useless.
It seems like it. They purposely cause things to just not function, then say government doesn’t work. In Oregon, they are trying to avoid purposely driven slow downs by keeping tabs on attendance for senators and if they miss like 10 appearances for voting, they are bared from running for office again. Measure 113 which was passed in 2022 in Oregon. However, it’s being challenged currently, so we’ll see what happens.
It’s a good idea to force collaboration.
Edit: link to the actual measure for those interested.
No shit Sherlock
It’s giving frightening new meaning to the old saw about politicians’ forming a circular firing squad.
If they only had the spine to pull the trigger.
Yes
So, our government is at a standstill because six(?), less than ten(?), people are pushing the lie about the 2020 election? This country seems to becoming increasingly fragile.
This may seem out of place but I’m still pushing the idea of Ranked Choice Voting resolving a lot of these issues. It’s a seemingly reasonable method of ensuring the contentment of the vast majority of voters and taking down the power of polarization. The greatest threat is that to the extremist media.
Usually when a headline ends in a question mark, the answer is “no”.
Except for this time.
For me, the worst part is they don’t even pretend anymore. They used to have constructive goals that could seem like a good idea to consider. I could listen to that and decide whether it seems good or not. But I don’t remember the last time I heard any positive goal from any conservative ……
maybe Romney a few years back was proposing something with actual family values, a benefit for kids, I don’t know if bigger tax break or healthcare or childcare or something, but it was drowned out pretty quickly with calls to break and destroy and ruin, calls to enrich the wealthy and remove support for regular people
This was true back under Reagan.
Hilarious to see folks running these Op-Eds forty years after it was obvious.
