Like the majority of you, I alternately found the Republican turmoil on show at the start of Congress to be hilarious and horrifying. Entertaining because it’s fun to watch pomp and circumstance enter the scene with their collective pants around their ankles; horrifying because this fall, when the debt ceiling is up for a vote, this turmoil might bring down the global financial system.
But I also observed another instance of how a minority in Washington, sometimes a very small one, can thwart the wishes of a majority. Even if we are aware that our system was intentionally created with anti-majoritarian norms and ideas, it is nevertheless amazing how frequently the few can disastrously overrun the many.
In the House of Representatives, where a state’s power is usually equated to its population, the majority is meant to rule by majority vote. It’s meant to stand in contrast to the Senate, which is stacked with safeguards against the rabid mob. That’s where a minority may filibuster a bill until it passes, where a single member can “hold” a nomination, and where the body provides the least and most populated states the same number of votes. Because 60 votes are required for almost every issue, even a party with 58 or 59 votes may find its prospects of passing legislation destroyed.
What exactly transpired on Tuesday in “the people’s house”?
Less than 5% of the House’s members, and less than 10% of the Republican caucus, prevented any action from being taken.
Kevin McCarthy, who on the mound is starting to resemble Charlie Brown, was able to secure 85% of the House GOP vote in November. That’s a rather strong expression of the conference’s opinion. But because the GOP majority in the House is so small, just five of the 222 members needed to defect in order to cast doubt on McCarthy’s appointment as speaker. McCarthy was generally willing to comply with a series of requests made by conservative hardliners at that point, which would have given even more authority to an ever-smaller cohort. (One of those demands would have granted a single member the authority to request a vote to remove the speaker, a capability that aided in the departure of former speakers.)
Whether or not the vast majority of House Republicans rejected these demands was irrelevant. Did it make a difference if the vast majority of them wanted to give McCarthy the gavel as speaker? No. This small group of obstinate men and women used their 5 percent of the vote to at least temporarily paralyse Congress with the tenacity of a hostage-taker.
Maybe this is not that shocking after all. One of the most startling features of our contemporary political climate is the rising contempt that some Republicans have for the concept of majority rule.
For instance, one may assume Republicans are worried by their failure to win the popular vote for president. They used to win it more frequently than they lost it; between 1952 and 1988, the GOP won it seven out of ten times. Since then, they have only succeeded once while failing seven times. True, that is not how presidents are chosen, but Republicans would rather talk about “voter integrity” and cast doubt on those voters in Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Detroit than work to increase their proportion of the vote. One prominent Wisconsin Republican even asserted that Republicans would triumph in every statewide election if Milwaukee and Madison were excluded. Unspoken belief that “the wrong people” are casting ballots is the motivation behind these “voter integrity” ideas.
The idea of a “independent state legislature” with the authority to draw the boundaries, establish the procedures (and possibly cast the votes) for elections, and who cannot be overruled by the courts or even by voters who prefer independent redistricting commissions has received significant support from some conservative thinkers. Although it’s too soon to predict how the Supreme Court would decide on the matter, it’s a thought that might be too much even for the aggressive conservative super-majority on the court.
Whether the recent fracas in the House will prompt a resentful majority of House Republicans to finally say “enough” to the rebels—who are undoubtedly anxious to cause more mayhem after this episode—is still unknown. Could committee assignments be refused to them? Is it feasible that the ever-dwindling group of genuinely moderate Republicans will join the Democrats and choose their own speaker? (Of course, it’s improbable, and the example of what transpired with the pro-impeachment House Republicans does not imply a successful outcome for this technique.)
What we do know is that we are being taught another lesson in just how fragile majorities — and our very system of governance — can be, especially if they are challenged by a minority shrewd enough and committed enough to attack their vulnerabilities.