A full week after he was ousted from his position as Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-California) has said that he’s open to running for the speakership again, despite previously saying he wouldn’t pursue the role.
The former speaker’s indecision will likely complicate the task of selecting a new speaker, which is poised to begin this week.
Republicans are preparing for what will likely be a long, drawn-out process to select someone to fill the constitutionally required position. A majority of the 435-seat House is needed to select a speaker; as the GOP has 222 seats in the House, the party is technically able to select someone on their own. However, deep factioning within the Republican conference in that chamber has made it difficult for any of the declared candidates so far to come close to attaining the 218 votes needed.
Indeed, if just five members of the Republican conference vote against the top vote-getter, they will fail to become speaker.
Republican Reps. Steve Scalise (Louisiana) and Jim Jordan (Ohio) have both announced that they are running. On a recent radio program, McCarthy didn’t formally announce that he’s running for his old job, but vowed to do “whatever the conference wants” if they select him again.
It took McCarthy 15 ballots over the course of several days to become speaker of the House in January — and that was when he had “frontrunner status” within his party. Without either Scalise or Jordan having that status, and with McCarthy potentially entering the fray, it’s possible that the process will take much longer, requiring many more ballots.
Three House Republicans still loyal to McCarthy have indicated that dozens of lawmakers in the House would vote for him on the first ballot for speaker, if given the opportunity to do so. Two of those three have promised to only vote for McCarthy, among the options that currently exist — narrowing the threshold to select a speaker even further, if most of the conference doesn’t back him.
Although McCarthy is the former speaker and lost his seat by only eight votes last week, his candidacy would be a longshot, as his removal demonstrated an inability to appease the differing factions within his conference.
McCarthy’s entrance into the speakership debate would also contradict what he seemingly promised last week — that he wouldn’t actively run for the speakership after being ousted. If he decides to run now, it would indicate a wishy-washy governing style — hardly the kind of leadership that Republicans are likely seeking at this tumultuous time, particularly in light of reports indicating that McCarthy was considering resigning from Congress altogether over the past week.
The situation is troubling many political and historical academics, who told The Washington Post last week that the ability of a small number of Republicans to remove a sitting speaker of the House was perhaps demonstrative of a crumbling democracy.
“We are watching a very small number of folks from the House Republican conference have an outsize role in promoting a lot of congressional dysfunction and fiscal dysfunction,” Laura Blessing, senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, told the Post.
“If you want to know what it looks like when democracy is in trouble, this is what it looks like. It should set off alarm bells that something is not right,” said Daniel Ziblatt, professor of government at Harvard University.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.