On Tuesday, for the first time in the nation's history, a sitting Speaker of the House was ousted. That came after eight Republicans joined with the entirety of the present Democrat caucus to boot Rep. Kevin McCarthy from the post.
Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is certainly up for debate. On its face, it seems unlikely any consensus Speaker candidate will be markedly different from McCarthy. Rep. Steve Scalise is currently undergoing chemo treatments for an aggressive cancer, but he has indicated (at least according to reports) that he would accept the job. Does shifting the number two Republican and a close ally of McCarthy into the top spot really change anything? Probably not.
Any analysis of this also has to include all the different variables. What happens to the impeachment inquiry given it was McCarthy who orchestrated it? Is there any chance of ever uniting Republicans to vote for articles of impeachment given the division that this motion to vacate caused? Are you really going to see those who despise Rep. Matt Gaetz with the fire of a thousand suns join forces with him? Again, the answer is probably not.
It's really easy to cheer on social media that McCarthy is gone, but nothing happens in a vacuum. I've never been a McCarthy fan, but I'm equally not a fan of pointless failure theater that puts the party in a worse position than it was before. Democrats don't do stuff like this because they are far more ruthlessly efficient in their governance.
With that said, what's done is done, and now Republicans have to come up with a plan to somehow turn this into a win. That's not going to be an easy task, and I'm not seeing much evidence that there's any attempt to do so.
Currently, you've got certain members calling for Donald Trump to be Speaker because they've apparently never met a problem they don't think Trump is the solution to. That's a pipedream, though. He would never garner enough votes to become Speaker nor would he ever actually want the job. It's a thankless position where knowledge of procedures is paramount. Does that sound like something Trump would be interested in?
Eventually, some kind of consensus candidate will emerge, though. When that happens, Republicans have to start living in the real world and reset their expectations. If they don't do so, we'll be right back in this position a few months from now looking like laughing stocks again.
I know the "but he fights" talking point is all the rage on the right. We've gotten so used to losing that we value talk over everything. But to be clear, there is no reality where Republicans somehow massively cut the budget while holding a four-seat (perhaps only three-seat soon enough) majority in one chamber of Congress. There is no reality where we "defund the DOJ" and the Democrat Senate and Joe Biden play along. We are not going to build a wall or execute mass deportations.
Anyone making those promises to you or suggesting they should be litmus tests for the next Speaker is playing you. They are whispering sweet nothings into your ear from their comfortable position behind a keyboard in hopes you don't take the five minutes necessary to research how any of this actually works.
With that said, there is a way where you could possibly get some of the stuff I mentioned: Win elections.
I know it's a foreign concept to the current Republican Party, but if you want to make sweeping changes, garner big enough majorities to make it possible. Of course, the last time the GOP had all three branches of government, Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell all got together to pass a bunch of omnibus bills and inflationary rescue packages.
That's where conservative angst should really lie. I'm much more angry at Republicans for continually squandering their power when they actually have it. Those who shout the loudest out of power are the very same people who do nothing when in power. Until that dynamic changes, the failure theater will continue.
