Kevin McCarthy is no longer Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. After angering Republican Party hardliners with a spending bill to keep the government funded last week, McCarthy was removed from power on Tuesday.
Representative Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida, introduced what in the House is known as a “motion to vacate” and Democrats refused to rescue McCarthy’s speakership. The Californian lost the support of eight Republicans, becoming the House speaker with the third shortest term. He said Tuesday night he would not run again.
The first “motion to vacate” vote in over 100 years, and the first to be successful, leaves the House in chaos.
On Tuesday, just before the vote, I spoke with Joseph Postell, a professor of politics at Hillsdale College who has written about the so-called Uprising of 1910.
He explained how this case, involving then-House Speaker Joseph Cannon, bears some similarity to McCarthy’s impeachment, but is also extremely different, since Cannon’s job as speaker was never in doubt.
Excerpts from our conversation, conducted over the phone and lightly edited, are below:
What is the difference between what is happening now and what happened in 1910?
WOLF: Why is this the first time this has happened since 1910?
POSTELL: Strictly speaking, this is the first time that a so-called motion to vacate or motion to declare the position of speaker vacant has been brought forward to get a vote on the floor since 1910. So in that way, this is only the second time that this voting actually continued.
WOLF: But Cannon (unlike McCarthy) was never in danger of losing his job, right?
POSTELL: In fact, Cannon called for the vote. He was the one who asked for it. The big difference here is that Cannon put himself on the ballot to make it clear that the people opposing him were playing opportunistically.
In this way, he really did it as a kind of demonstration of principled leadership, although obviously this was more forced (McCarthy). So that’s a significant difference.
The general outline of what happened in 1910:
There is a Republican Party, divided internally between progressives and conservatives. So similar, except the lines of division today are obviously very different.
Joseph Cannon was a conservative spokesman who basically frustrated the progressive wing of his party, and that wing couldn’t really cross over to the Democratic Party. In 1910, the Democratic Party was no more progressive than the Republican Party, and in fact, it was probably less progressive. So all they could do was fight the party from within.
In 1910, the spokesman was basically a czar. So really, the difference here, I would say, is that Cannon was a czar and McCarthy was not.
The three pillars of the speaker’s power in 1910 were the right of recognition, the ability to choose all committee chairmen and members, and power over the Rules Committee. The office does not have that kind of power today. Thus, progressives could be completely removed from the political process.
George Norris, who was a Progressive from Nebraska, introduces this resolution to strip the President of full control over the Rules Committee. Then, once that passes — it takes three days for that to actually pass — next year, they start taking away the speaker’s other powers as well.
So the 1910 debate, and then the vote to remove Cannon, is really a critical turning point in the entire history of the House of Representatives. It could be the critical turning point in terms of the power of the position.
Video: House removes Kevin McCarthy as president
The end of the era of tsar-style spokespeople
WOLF: Why did the position lose energy?
POSTELL: That was the end of the era of tsar-style spokesmen.
WOLF: Did they rebuild it in the following years? (Former Republican Speaker Newt) Gingrich has regained some power and clearly (former Democratic Speaker Nancy) Pelosi has wielded more power than many other more recent speakers. Is this the time for McCarthy to lose part of what was rebuilt or something else?
POSTELL : Some of these powers have been returned to the office, certainly, over the last 40 years. But my opinion is that the spokesman was not given any kind of tsar-like power. This episode illustrates exactly that fact, in part because the motion to vacate the position is always hanging over the speaker these days.
It certainly hung over (John) Boehner’s head and Paul Ryan’s head, and then McCarthy’s. I think we still live in this world of weak spokespeople, even though some of those powers have been regained. This is probably a point of contention between me and other scholars.
The Case for Stronger Spokespeople
WOLF: I read your argument that the spokesperson should be more powerful. Explain this.
POSTELL: I think the American Congress was designed to be paralyzed, fragmented, and very difficult to muster a majority. This is the basic idea of Federalist Number 10, which is probably the most famous of all federalist essays: we want a Congress that is fragmented and paralyzed.
The problem with this is how do you actually put together a majority coalition and then get the members of that coalition to vote together on some kind of agenda? The only way, it seems to me, to get there in the modern context is to have parties that are capable of building these coalitions, maintaining them, and having leaders who make the party govern effectively.
I think this would allow Congress to take more power away from the executive branch, it would allow Congress to do more, and it would also encourage negotiation and compromise between the two parties because party leaders’ incentives are to govern, as opposed to individual members of Congress who have to do campaign, raise funds and hold exhibitions, even if they are not doing serious legislative work.
Republicans and Democrats are very different than they were in 1910
WOLF: You pointed out that in 1910 it was similar because there was a Republican majority split in two. How are parties different than they were back then? They realigned so completely that I’ve heard that Republicans back then were more like Democrats today. Do you agree with this?
POSTELL: To some extent, though I think the issues are so different these days that it’s hard to really draw that kind of connection.
I think the big difference between the parties of the early 20th century and those of today is that the older parties of Cannon’s time were much stronger. They had access to sponsorship. They had access to more campaign financing directly linked to parties, and not to independent groups. They also managed to control the nominations of their congressional candidates. So the parties were actually much stronger a century ago.
Today, parties do not have as much control over campaign financing or appointments. And that’s one of the reasons why the mouthpiece is so much weaker these days than it was in Cannon’s day.
What would Cannon say about McCarthy?
WOLF: How do you think Cannon would view what’s going on with McCarthy?
POSTELL: I think Cannon would probably encourage McCarthy to be bolder and accept that defeat is a realistic possibility and be ready to retire from public life.
Cannon, when he risks everything in 1910, is perfectly calm because he does not see his political career as being everything to him. He is more than happy to retire from public life, to make money in the private sector.
One of the things about politicians back then is that they were prepared to risk their careers to take a principled stand. And they accepted the results.
They didn’t see a life outside politics as some kind of sentence. They were willing to be bolder. I think McCarthy, probably from Cannon’s perspective, played a lot of defense.
Where history is repeating itself
WOLF: If you look at recent Republican leaders and spokespeople, you will see that the same issue ended all of their terms in office. It’s as if history repeated itself. This is the first time this type of vote has removed someone from office, but it is always their inability to control the Freedom Caucus wing that removes them. How should Republicans handle this?
POSTELL: It’s not easy to answer that question because it’s hard to know what Republicans can do to address it.
The question implies that (they) have some means or ability to control what is happening. And there are things the parties could do.
You could try to encourage candidates in primary races who are more open to compromise, who are more open to working with the rest of the coalition. That’s one thing they could do. But they don’t have the resources to control many of these breeds or to make much of a difference. So it’s actually hard to see what Republicans can do.
If you were thinking about this problem in the long term, what might be the best way to think about it, you would try to rebuild the party.
As a long-term project, this means really focusing on rebuilding your state parties so they feel more connected to the base. Because I think what really gave rise to this problem is that many members of the Republican base don’t feel like the party represents them.
What kind of spokesman has McCarthy been?
WOLF: As we speak (before Tuesday’s vote to remove McCarthy), we don’t know his fate. But where do you place your brief tenure as speaker now in the pantheon of House speakers?
POSTELL: I think he did an admirable job in a very difficult position. He decentralized much of the authority. He put people on the Rules Committee who were friendlier to the Freedom Caucus.
More than Boehner or Ryan, he has shown a willingness to work with the Freedom Caucus. Obviously, he had to do this. But I think he kept a lot of his promises, so I would say he did an admirable job in very difficult circumstances with the situation he was put in.
See also: Biden and McCarthy reach agreement on debt in the United States
Source: CNN Brasil
Bruce Belcher is a seasoned author with over 5 years of experience in world news. He writes for online news websites and provides in-depth analysis on the world stock market. Bruce is known for his insightful perspectives and commitment to keeping the public informed.
