Closing the deal.

May 30, 2023

          I won’t pretend to have any unique insight into how Kevin McCarthy will deliver sufficient support from his caucus to pass the proposed budget deal through the House. That is because support for the deal may hinge on support for McCarthy as Speaker—which in turn hinges on which contested promises (if any) McCarthy made to secure the final votes to push him over the line.

          Before addressing the mutiny faced by McCarthy, let’s recognize that the most important question is whether the compromise proposal will make it through Congress before the US defaults. The answer to that question is clear: A “definite maybe.” Or, as a Magic 8 Ball would put it, “Signs point to yes.”

          As McCarthy and Biden gain support for their compromise, the “holdouts” risk becoming the “names that will live in infamy” as the person(s) who pushed the US to default on its sovereign debt. While Reps. Gaetz, Greene, and Boebert might welcome that infamy, it seems unlikely that other members of the Freedom Caucus will want their most memorable achievement to be withholding or curtailing Social Security benefits, cutting federal salaries, delaying payments to Medicaid providers, and cutting veterans’ benefits. Of course, everyone with retirement funds invested in the stock market will make it a personal vendetta to vote against the holdouts who dare to push the US to default.

          Talk is cheap, and angry Freedom Caucus members are spending like drunken sailors on shore leave. See Reuters, Republicans speak out against US debt-ceiling deal, in sign of rocky road ahead. So, did McCarthy make a deal that would end his tenure as Speaker? To answer the question, we should ask another: “Why would McCarthy do that?” He is not a selfless guy, so it seems unlikely that he made a deal that would end his tenure as Speaker.

          But some Freedom Caucus members disagree. They claim that McCarthy promised never to bring a bill to the floor of the House unless all Republican members of the House Rules Committee support the bill. See Politico, McCarthy rallies support for debt deal amid hints of mutiny.

Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas tweeted on Saturday that

[D]uring Speaker negotiations to build the coalition, that it was explicit both that nothing would pass Rules Committee without AT LEAST 7 GOP votes - AND that the Committee would not allow reporting out rules without unanimous Republican votes.

          Since Chip Roy opposes the deal and sits on the Rules Committee, the proposed bill will not get to the floor under the “explicit” agreement allegedly made by McCarthy to gain the Speakership. But as other members of the Freedom Caucus have noted, the rules of the Rules Committee do not reflect the “explicit” agreement made by McCarthy.

Per the Politico article above, GOP Rep. Dusty Johnson said,

If those conversations took place, the rest of the conference was unaware of them. And frankly, I doubt that. I’m a rules guy. When somebody tells me something has to happen a certain way, the first thing I do is get out the rule book. And when I checked, there wasn’t a rule that something has to come out of the Rules Committee unanimously.

          So, there you have it: Clear as mud, except for the fact that both Biden and McCarthy seem confident that Congress will get to “Yes.”

The impeachment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and the future of the Republican Party.

          Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has long been under suspicion, investigation, and indictment for a variety of crimes—all involving charges of dishonesty and corruption. He was indicted for securities fraud in 2015 but has yet to stand trial. For a list of Paxton’s many legal troubles, see Vox, Ken Paxton: Why Texas Republicans want to impeach the state attorney general.

          As Paxton remained in office despite multiple scandals, investigations, and an indictment, he has been one of the most reactionary and aggressive attorneys general in the US: Denying women reproductive liberty, discriminating against LGBTQ people, erasing the separation of church and state, and suppressing the right of minorities to vote.

          With lightning speed at the end of the current Texas legislative session, the GOP-controlled assembly in Texas voted to impeach Paxton, who is currently suspended from official duties pending his trial in the Texas Senate. Many commentators have described the impeachment of Paxton as the result of a long-simmering feud between factions of the Texas Republican Party. While that description is undeniably true, the NYTimes Houston bureau chief, David Goodman, has written an analysis that digs much deeper than the “feuding factions” narrative. See David Goodman, NYTimes, Long Before Impeachment, GOP Rifts Were Growing in Texas. (This article is accessible to all.)

          I highly recommend Goodman’s excellent article. As he explains, the Paxton impeachment manifests the Texas GOP’s existential crisis over its identity and continued existence. Goodman writes,

Though the eruption was unexpected — as of a week ago there was little public indication that an impeachment could be imminent — it was the culmination of a session of the Texas Legislature, where Republicans dominate both chambers, that was defined by steadily increasing intraparty acrimony.

“It’s the battle between the version of the Republican Party under Trump and the version of the traditional Republican Party,” said Jeronimo Cortina, a professor of political science at the University of Houston. The fight is especially urgent in Texas, he added, because increasing urbanization and demographic changes threaten the party’s dominance over Democrats.

“The question for Republicans is, do you want to stay in government for a couple of years” by catering to a shrinking pool of aging voters? Mr. Cortina said, describing the party’s most conservative members. “Or do you want to invest in having a Republican Party that’s going to have a future in Texas?”

         Professor Cortina’s description of the unattractive choices faced by the Texas GOP can be mapped onto reactionary Republican parties across the nation. Facing a “shrinking pool of aging voters” Republican parties across the nation “cling to power” by catering to a dwindling population rather than acknowledging the “increasing urbanization and demographic changes that threaten the party’s dominance over Democrats.”

          A simpler distillation of Professor Cortina’s description of the challenge facing Republicans is this question: “The future or the past?”  

          During the last legislative session, the Texas GOP signaled that it is a “party of the past”—seeking to return to an era when women and Black Americans were denied the right to vote, speak, and control their own lives. Texas has turned pregnant women into prey by bounty hunters who seek to collect rewards for reporting “suspicious” pregnancy terminations to the state. The Texas legislature has proposed mandatory posting of the Ten Commandments in every classroom in the state. And Governor Greg Abbott is promoting the use of public funds to support private schools—a functional throwback to segregation outlawed in Brown v. Board of Education.

          If the impeachment of Ken Paxton is a manifestation of the Texas GOP’s identity crisis and existential challenge, the actions of Texas Republicans over the last legislative session indicate they have opted for the party’s long-term demise. And the pattern in Texas is repeating itself in state GOP parties across America. The pattern is this:

• GOP political dominance based on gerrymandering rather than popular support;

• Gerrymandered GOP legislatures force through legislation that panders to a dwindling constituency of aging, white (mostly male) voters; and

• Doing so in the face of increasing urbanization and demographic trends that align with Democratic constituencies.

          To state the obvious, Democrats cannot—must not—rely on “demographic changes” to gain control of state legislatures and statehouses. But neither should we ignore the fact that such changes are happening and that Democratic policies align with the interests of a changing America, the America of the future.

          Simon Rosenberg posted a graphic over the weekend that shows House Republicans are underwater on most issues, even with voters of their own party! See Simon Rosenberg on Twitter, citing a Navigator Poll that shows House Republicans do not have the support of the majority of Republican voters on issues like abortion, guns, and the climate crisis. Those are issues that drive younger, diverse, and independent voters to the Democratic Party.

          While we should not over-interpret the impeachment of Ken Paxton, it is a remarkable development that seemingly erupted overnight. One part of the explanation may be that Paxton is a corrupt proponent of the reactionary yearnings of a Republican Party doomed to fail. His corruption became an excuse for less reactionary elements of the Texas GOP to put the brakes on a runaway train headed for a demographic cliff.

          As always, we cannot wait for Republicans to defeat themselves. But neither should we ascribe to Republicans superpowers and invincibility they do not possess. They are wounded, desperate, and frightened—which explains the recent convulsive wave of hate-filled reactionary legislation emanating from GOP legislatures. If they were intent on winning the future, they would be focused on policies important to younger, diverse voters who are the future of Texas—the voters that Democrats in Texas are rallying for 2024. See Texas Democratic Party, Our Platform.

Concluding Thoughts.

          Thanks to all who shared memories of parents, grandparents, husbands, wives, brothers, uncles, and friends who served in the military. I acknowledge those readers who wrote to say that we should spend more time pursuing peace and less time focused on war. Such sentiments are incontestably true, but so long as we ask our sons and daughters to serve in the US military, we should remember those who lose their lives doing so.

          After a year of criticism about Biden’s lack of press availability, he has begun answering questions after scheduled speeches, while boarding Marine One, and while walking to and from events. Biden’s responses have included flashes of humor and pique—hardly the reactions of someone allegedly unfit to hold public office. See the video embedded in an article in Real Clear Politics. Biden not only achieved a debt deal better than anyone expected, but he parried with the press over the terms of the deal like the experienced, confident leader he is.

          Both sides have the obligation to bring the deal home, but the biggest obstacle is McCarthy’s weakness (and possible duplicity with his caucus). Biden has acted honorably and ably throughout the process. Again, we are fortunate to have Biden at the helm during this challenging process.

          Talk to you tomorrow!