If you like to see the glass half-full, you could rejoice in the precipitation of 25 Republican representatives from the simmering solution that is Party. They voted against Rep. Jim Jordan ( R-Ohio) as a nominee for Speaker of the House. This would not be so much schaden-freue (pleasure in the misfortune of others), as a hope that principles-over-Party might be rising up against the partisan allegiance in the Republican Party.
The analysis of the dissenters is reported in the Friday edition (October 20) of the Washington Post, an attempt to recognize a pattern in those who voted their non-partisan conscience. It has been a long time since either Party has claimed enough moderates to vote against Party interests. Yet moderates sustain the hope that vital legislation can actually pass a deeply divided legislature.
As the Post reported, two-thirds of all Republicans voted against certifying Joe Biden as President in 2021, but only four of the twenty-five Jordan-dissenters did so. This choice indicates a promising opposition to the voting-bloc that clings to the Trump agenda.
Some of the dissenting legislators voted only to show loyalty to Steve Scalise, the discarded candidate for Speaker, and some voted against immoderate spending tendencies of Jordan. Yet some stand out as members of determined caucuses of Republicans who are willing to vote against the majority voting the “Party line.”
Apparently the term “moderate” is anathema in today’s Republican Party, so these representatives tend to identify themselves as members of caucuses of the Party, among them the “Problem Solvers” Caucus and the “Governance Caucus.” It may be merely coincidence that many of these caucus members also represent districts that President Biden won in 2020, but their votes still represent the people who elected them.
Of the “five families” that represent the Republican conference, one caucus of rabble-rousers stands out, the Problem Solvers Caucus. Nearly half of the Republicans who voted against Jordan on Friday belong to this caucus:
Reps. Andrew R. Garbarino (R-N.Y.) John James (R-Mich.), Don Bacon (R-Neb.), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.), Anthony D’Esposito (R-N.Y.) Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Tony Gonzales (Tex.), Thomas H. Kean (N.J.) Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.),Rep. Michael Lawler (R-N.Y.) and Marcus J. Molinaro (N.Y.).
These eleven members could form a new leadership within the Party. They outnumber the eight who voted to vacate McCarthy from the Speaker-ship. That proves they are a force to reckon with in the Party
The Republican Governance Group describes itself as supporting House Republicans’ “governing wing.” Five of them, plus a few who belong to the “Problem Solvers,” voted against Jordan. The five who belong only Governance are
Reps. Carlos A. Giménez (Fla.), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (Iowa) and Pete Stauber (Minn.) as well as Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.), and Steve Womack (Ark.).
Altogether these two caucuses supplied 16 of the twenty-five votes against Jordan. They could be considered a new voting block who could influence Republican decisions in the future. They also represent a group who are willing to buck former President Trump, who endorsed Jordan for Speaker.
These dissenters are not the voices of doom to the Republican Party. Rather they are the non-conformists who will stand against the majority serving the former President, a pernicious influence. They represent a group unafraid to be branded “Rino” (Republicans in name only) by the ex-President. They also represent the best hope to form a bi-partisan coalition to pass moderate, reasonable legislation, such as the “something for everyone” $106 billion foreign aid bill advanced by President Biden just this week.
It will be interesting to see what influence they wield in the next nomination for House Speaker. If they have a common interest in “problem-solving” and “governing,” they could become the new leadership in the Party, a Party with principles and a willingness to collaborate on legislation.
That can only be a glass half full, for Congress.