Never doubt the ability of conservatives to shoot themselves in the foot.
During my almost 17 years working in American politics, one of my most enduring experiences has been of conservatives self-destructing, thereby ruining their own chances of getting things done.
When I first became aware of this phenomenon, I had a hard time believing it. Why would principled people with a desire to turn conservative ideas into political practice act in such a way that they ruin their likelihood of ever being successful?
Over time, though, I learned that what I thought I saw was indeed what I actually saw. People with solid conservative convictions entered politics—as activists or as candidates and elected officials—and rose to the point where people listened to them.
And then they would fall right back down again.
Here is how it often works: Some person is sitting in his or her little community talking about politics with friends and family. A common theme of the conversation, especially among hardline conservatives, is that ‘someone ought to do something’ about this or that problem. It can be any political issue, from tax hikes to abortion to environmental regulation, but whatever gets the conservative going, will keep it moving until some people coalesce around one of their friends and suggest that he should run for office.
The person gets elected and boldly declares that America’s future all of a sudden turned brighter. He goes into the legislature with a bombastic agenda to ‘change everything right now.’
Except—that is not how politics works. One person cannot ‘change everything right now’ any more than one person can stop the flow of a river. It takes patience, commitment, more patience, and a lot of political back-and-forth, give-and-take, and painstaking negotiations over how to bridge gaps between different views.
Right here is where conservatives have a notorious ability to fail. They do not always do it, but it happens at alarming levels. The failure is typically defined by the conservative as him not getting all he wanted, or at least the overwhelming majority of it, in legislative negotiations. If he does not get that, he will then loudly declare his deep dissatisfaction—and metaphorically (or perhaps from time to time literally) go sit in a corner and pout.
I could name countless examples of this phenomenon. A good friend ran for the state legislature as the most principled conservative in the state. He thought so highly of himself and his admittedly well-articulated and respectable principles, that he was going to sway the other lawmakers his way simply by virtue of his rhetorical and intellectual prowess.
Once in office, he was met with the usual wheeling-and-dealing machine where other Republican legislators also wanted a say in what bills to pass and what policies to pursue. My friend the principled conservative was so taken aback by this process, and the very thought that he was not going to get everything he promised to his voters in one term, that after two years and zero accomplishments, he quietly chose not to run for re-election again.
The result of my friend’s cut-and-run decision was, of course, that those who had bothered to learn how to grease the wheels of the political machine, i.e., the ideological moderates within the Republican party, held on to their power. By doing so, they could continue to advance policies that principled conservatives opposed.
In my friend’s defense, I should give him credit for actually running for office, and for winning, at that. For every principled conservative who runs for election, there are 20 or more who talk as confidently about doing it but always find one reason, no matter how eclectic, why they can’t.
With that said, let us move on from this one example. I am going to leap over countless others—there is no point in repeating similar stories hundreds of times—to one of America’s best-known practitioners of conservative self-destruction. Ladies and gentlemen—Marjorie Taylor Greene:
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., told reporters on Friday that she filed a motion to vacate House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., accusing him of having “betrayed” the “confidence” of the House GOP Conference by ushering through a bipartisan $1.2 trillion federal funding bill to avoid a partial government shutdown.
Some background is warranted. According to the U.S. Constitution, it is the job of the House of Representatives to create and pass a budget for the federal government. Over the past 14 years, since President Obama assumed office for his first term, the budget-making process has fallen apart. Obama made a habit out of not cooperating with Republicans on any budget, which forced the House to pass a series of so-called ‘continuing resolutions’. These are bills that make it legal for the president and his administration to continue to fund the operations of the federal government, even though there is no budget in place.
Continuing resolutions are by definition short-term. Congress was given the power to pass them with the explicit purpose that glitches in the budgeting process were not going to shut down government. However, since Obama’s heydays in the White House, the continuing resolution has increasingly become the dominant way for Congress to fund the federal government.
This week, it was time for another one. Speaker Mike Johnson negotiated a deal with the Democrats and with his own Republicans, which would provide $1.2 trillion in funding for the federal government. The deal would stretch into the fall, ostensibly for the remainder of the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on September 30th.
Speaker Johnson got the resolution passed by the House, but not without some fireworks, courtesy of Marjorie Taylor Greene. Since she was displeased with the spending resolution, she decided to formally request—filing a motion—that Speaker Johnson resign (vacate) his office.
Mike Johnson became Speaker of the House on October 25th last year. In other words, he has been in office almost exactly five months. Before that, the Republicans had Kevin McCarthy, who took over from Democrat Nancy Pelosi in January 2023. He managed to stay in office for almost nine months.
Apparently, Ms. Taylor Greene thinks it is a really good idea for the Republicans to change House Speaker about as often as Joe Biden forgets the name of another foreign leader, and especially just over seven months before the next election.
Who would Ms. Taylor Greene want to see as Speaker for the next couple of weeks?
From a strategic viewpoint, voting in a new House Speaker on Monday and ousting him before you fly home to your district for the weekend is not the best way for Republicans to project confidence, reliability, and leadership. As much as Ms. Taylor Greene might not like it, these are three character traits that voters appreciate when they consider who to vote for in the next election. Voters want to see things get done—not big, bold reforms, just progress in the direction of their preference.
The Left learned this decades ago. The Democratic Party is leaps and bounds above the Republicans in forming an organized political structure that can create legislation, vote on legislation, and pass legislation. They debate issues, and they disagree, sometimes vehemently, but in the end, they form a band of loyalists behind the opinion that the majority has negotiated, voted on, or otherwise coalesced around.
With this organizational ability, the Democrats have been able to move the needle their way on countless policy issues. Republicans, on the other hand, get things passed by happenstance: the last big accomplishment by a Republican-led Congress was the tax reform that President Trump championed.
It is, of course, always easier to get things done when the president is from your own party, but it was not always that way. A coherent, consistent, and solutions-oriented House majority has been able to work with presidents from across the political aisle:
- In the 1980s, a Democrat-led Congress worked closely with Republican President Ronald Reagan;
- In the 1990s, a comparatively conservative House of Representatives passed four budgets—all balanced—in cooperation with President Bill Clinton.
Back then, Republicans celebrated the Victory of the Small Steps. They knew they would never get everything they wanted, but if they could report steady progress back to their constituents, then at least their voters would see that they were moving in the right direction.
Today, far too many conservatives lack the ability to celebrate the Victory of Small Steps, let alone recognize the concept. They demand everything now, and their willingness to compromise could allow for a small portion to be postponed until tomorrow, provided that they—not the majority of Republicans who are moderates—get to define today’s political agenda.
I have from time to time asked these principled conservatives how they intend to achieve their policy goals, once they have realized that their political acumen yields nothing of substance. I have yet to encounter one principled conservative who can give me an intelligible answer.
The reason, of course, is that there is no strategy. My friend, the state legislator, is now as forgotten as last year’s dragonflies, but the achievements of his political competitors within the Republican party are all the more memorable. (To protect my friend’s identity, I will not offer any details.) In a similar fashion, Marjorie Taylor Green has no strategy. Her idea to oust the Speaker of the House is driven solely by the fact that she is immune to the concept of political patience. By patiently waiting for the next battle, and by preparing and coming into that battle with a better strategy than last time, Ms. Taylor Green could have moved her principled conservatism forward. By treating Speaker Johnson with respect—despite not getting everything she wanted from him—she would gradually open his mind to her ideas.
Instead, she chose to set an example for all other principled conservatives: if you don’t get everything on your wish list right now, then throw a temper tantrum and slam the door on your way out. It makes the headlines, but it won’t make a difference.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are celebrating the Victory of the Small Steps.
Conservative Gridlock
Image: ELLE RITTER from Pixabay
Never doubt the ability of conservatives to shoot themselves in the foot.
During my almost 17 years working in American politics, one of my most enduring experiences has been of conservatives self-destructing, thereby ruining their own chances of getting things done.
When I first became aware of this phenomenon, I had a hard time believing it. Why would principled people with a desire to turn conservative ideas into political practice act in such a way that they ruin their likelihood of ever being successful?
Over time, though, I learned that what I thought I saw was indeed what I actually saw. People with solid conservative convictions entered politics—as activists or as candidates and elected officials—and rose to the point where people listened to them.
And then they would fall right back down again.
Here is how it often works: Some person is sitting in his or her little community talking about politics with friends and family. A common theme of the conversation, especially among hardline conservatives, is that ‘someone ought to do something’ about this or that problem. It can be any political issue, from tax hikes to abortion to environmental regulation, but whatever gets the conservative going, will keep it moving until some people coalesce around one of their friends and suggest that he should run for office.
The person gets elected and boldly declares that America’s future all of a sudden turned brighter. He goes into the legislature with a bombastic agenda to ‘change everything right now.’
Except—that is not how politics works. One person cannot ‘change everything right now’ any more than one person can stop the flow of a river. It takes patience, commitment, more patience, and a lot of political back-and-forth, give-and-take, and painstaking negotiations over how to bridge gaps between different views.
Right here is where conservatives have a notorious ability to fail. They do not always do it, but it happens at alarming levels. The failure is typically defined by the conservative as him not getting all he wanted, or at least the overwhelming majority of it, in legislative negotiations. If he does not get that, he will then loudly declare his deep dissatisfaction—and metaphorically (or perhaps from time to time literally) go sit in a corner and pout.
I could name countless examples of this phenomenon. A good friend ran for the state legislature as the most principled conservative in the state. He thought so highly of himself and his admittedly well-articulated and respectable principles, that he was going to sway the other lawmakers his way simply by virtue of his rhetorical and intellectual prowess.
Once in office, he was met with the usual wheeling-and-dealing machine where other Republican legislators also wanted a say in what bills to pass and what policies to pursue. My friend the principled conservative was so taken aback by this process, and the very thought that he was not going to get everything he promised to his voters in one term, that after two years and zero accomplishments, he quietly chose not to run for re-election again.
The result of my friend’s cut-and-run decision was, of course, that those who had bothered to learn how to grease the wheels of the political machine, i.e., the ideological moderates within the Republican party, held on to their power. By doing so, they could continue to advance policies that principled conservatives opposed.
In my friend’s defense, I should give him credit for actually running for office, and for winning, at that. For every principled conservative who runs for election, there are 20 or more who talk as confidently about doing it but always find one reason, no matter how eclectic, why they can’t.
With that said, let us move on from this one example. I am going to leap over countless others—there is no point in repeating similar stories hundreds of times—to one of America’s best-known practitioners of conservative self-destruction. Ladies and gentlemen—Marjorie Taylor Greene:
Some background is warranted. According to the U.S. Constitution, it is the job of the House of Representatives to create and pass a budget for the federal government. Over the past 14 years, since President Obama assumed office for his first term, the budget-making process has fallen apart. Obama made a habit out of not cooperating with Republicans on any budget, which forced the House to pass a series of so-called ‘continuing resolutions’. These are bills that make it legal for the president and his administration to continue to fund the operations of the federal government, even though there is no budget in place.
Continuing resolutions are by definition short-term. Congress was given the power to pass them with the explicit purpose that glitches in the budgeting process were not going to shut down government. However, since Obama’s heydays in the White House, the continuing resolution has increasingly become the dominant way for Congress to fund the federal government.
This week, it was time for another one. Speaker Mike Johnson negotiated a deal with the Democrats and with his own Republicans, which would provide $1.2 trillion in funding for the federal government. The deal would stretch into the fall, ostensibly for the remainder of the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on September 30th.
Speaker Johnson got the resolution passed by the House, but not without some fireworks, courtesy of Marjorie Taylor Greene. Since she was displeased with the spending resolution, she decided to formally request—filing a motion—that Speaker Johnson resign (vacate) his office.
Mike Johnson became Speaker of the House on October 25th last year. In other words, he has been in office almost exactly five months. Before that, the Republicans had Kevin McCarthy, who took over from Democrat Nancy Pelosi in January 2023. He managed to stay in office for almost nine months.
Apparently, Ms. Taylor Greene thinks it is a really good idea for the Republicans to change House Speaker about as often as Joe Biden forgets the name of another foreign leader, and especially just over seven months before the next election.
Who would Ms. Taylor Greene want to see as Speaker for the next couple of weeks?
From a strategic viewpoint, voting in a new House Speaker on Monday and ousting him before you fly home to your district for the weekend is not the best way for Republicans to project confidence, reliability, and leadership. As much as Ms. Taylor Greene might not like it, these are three character traits that voters appreciate when they consider who to vote for in the next election. Voters want to see things get done—not big, bold reforms, just progress in the direction of their preference.
The Left learned this decades ago. The Democratic Party is leaps and bounds above the Republicans in forming an organized political structure that can create legislation, vote on legislation, and pass legislation. They debate issues, and they disagree, sometimes vehemently, but in the end, they form a band of loyalists behind the opinion that the majority has negotiated, voted on, or otherwise coalesced around.
With this organizational ability, the Democrats have been able to move the needle their way on countless policy issues. Republicans, on the other hand, get things passed by happenstance: the last big accomplishment by a Republican-led Congress was the tax reform that President Trump championed.
It is, of course, always easier to get things done when the president is from your own party, but it was not always that way. A coherent, consistent, and solutions-oriented House majority has been able to work with presidents from across the political aisle:
Back then, Republicans celebrated the Victory of the Small Steps. They knew they would never get everything they wanted, but if they could report steady progress back to their constituents, then at least their voters would see that they were moving in the right direction.
Today, far too many conservatives lack the ability to celebrate the Victory of Small Steps, let alone recognize the concept. They demand everything now, and their willingness to compromise could allow for a small portion to be postponed until tomorrow, provided that they—not the majority of Republicans who are moderates—get to define today’s political agenda.
I have from time to time asked these principled conservatives how they intend to achieve their policy goals, once they have realized that their political acumen yields nothing of substance. I have yet to encounter one principled conservative who can give me an intelligible answer.
The reason, of course, is that there is no strategy. My friend, the state legislator, is now as forgotten as last year’s dragonflies, but the achievements of his political competitors within the Republican party are all the more memorable. (To protect my friend’s identity, I will not offer any details.) In a similar fashion, Marjorie Taylor Green has no strategy. Her idea to oust the Speaker of the House is driven solely by the fact that she is immune to the concept of political patience. By patiently waiting for the next battle, and by preparing and coming into that battle with a better strategy than last time, Ms. Taylor Green could have moved her principled conservatism forward. By treating Speaker Johnson with respect—despite not getting everything she wanted from him—she would gradually open his mind to her ideas.
Instead, she chose to set an example for all other principled conservatives: if you don’t get everything on your wish list right now, then throw a temper tantrum and slam the door on your way out. It makes the headlines, but it won’t make a difference.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are celebrating the Victory of the Small Steps.
READ NEXT
Pan-Conservativi: A New Global Conservative Reality
Islamo-Nazis: I’m Applying for a Foreign Passport
Silenced Siblings: Christopher and Peter Hitchens on Abortion