A Motion to Vacate the Chair

Matt Gaetz and Kevin McCarthy. Photo credit: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds / AFP/ Al Drago/Bloomberg

Speaker Kevin McCarthy keeps making history. His earlier 15 attempts to gain the speakership, which he finally achieved after making brutal power-sharing and finger-on-the-trigger concessions to extremists in his own party, have led inevitably to where he now finds himself. Late Monday evening, McCarthy’s nemesis in the House, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who nearly foiled McCarthy’s speakership ambitions in the first place, made good on his threat and filed a motion to vacate the chair. He could do so only because McCarthy had earlier agreed to move the threshold for such a motion down to just one single member.

Gaetz has brought the motion as a “privileged” motion, meaning it should be heard and voted upon in the next two days, barring McCarthy’s ability to table it, or to send it to committee to wither.

Gaetz believes he has the votes to oust McCarthy. “I have enough Republicans,” he said. Per reporting by the New York Times, four other GOP Representatives (Tim Burchett (R-TN), Eli Crane (R-AZ), Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Bob Good (R-VA)) have said they are inclined to support the motion to vacate. Still others are open to it.

So what happens now? Let’s sketch out some possible scenarios and weigh their pros and cons. Because McCarthy may need Democrats to vote against the motion, that hands Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries rather enormous leverage at this point. It’s the same leverage Jeffries used to push through the favorable debt ceiling bill and the Senate version of the continuing resolution on the budget voted on last week, minus Ukrainian aid which is likely still coming in some form.

Sometimes it’s hard to remember who is actually in charge.

With McCarthy in a predictable pickle, and Democrats holding his fate in their hands, we can break this leadership crisis down and inspect some possible paths forward.

Democratic members exact concessions

When your hand is this strong, it is tempting to play it to force concessions. Democrats could rescue McCarthy, but they could lay out some tough terms. For example, some Democrats have floated the idea that, in exchange for their support, McCarthy should be bound by the earlier budget terms, appoint more Democratic House members to committees, and ensure that earmarks from appropriations are more fairly allocated. They could also demand that he call a halt to the politicized impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden that is now rather embarrassingly underway with, so far, zero evidence of any high crimes and misdemeanors.

Such concessions would be significant wins.

But they carry some risks, too. If McCarthy is seen as a mere puppet of Jeffries as a result, or if McCarthy attempts to govern by some fanciful and grand bipartisan coalition, there are minefields aplenty. Republicans, who are still in the majority, could make life difficult at every step. For example, the far-right members could openly revolt, once again, and vote down any rule resolutions put forward by McCarthy, including on appropriations bills. They’ve already done this twice last month, and if it seems that their own leader has caved, then extremists likely would grow yet more emboldened. To move legislation forward, McCarthy would once again have to rely on Democrats, and after a few such attempts it would become clear that it is not a tenable position or any way to run the House.

As for the Democrats, they will have bought themselves a messaging problem. Up till now, it’s been easy for Democrats to show how Republicans fail repeatedly and are in disarray, only to be rescued by the Democrats, who by contrast are disciplined and in lockstep with Jeffries. But if new power-sharing concessions put the Democrats at least half in charge of the House, the picture becomes quite murky. Who then can be held responsible for the dysfunction?

It’s a bit like trying to go on a date with someone who recently got divorced and whose spouse is still issuing death threats. Terrible idea. Wouldn’t recommend.

Moreover, Democrats will be vulnerable to attacks from their own side that they voted for the same Speaker whom they earlier condemned. That means a vote for abortion restrictions, for migrant bashing, for impeachment, for corporate tax breaks and for Russian propagandists. Voters might have a hard time understanding why Democrats kept McCarthy in place if he was so bad.

Being “present” in the moment

Another possibility is for Democrats not to affirmatively vote “for” McCarthy, but instead to vote “present” so that the number that represents the majority drops by one-half for each such vote cast. To clarify, consider this: Right now it takes 218 votes to form a majority in the House because there are 435 voting House members. But if two of the members indicate “present,” that means the total number of voting House members drops to 433, meaning you only need 217 votes to get past the halfway point.

If enough Democrats vote “present,” McCarthy in theory could stay in power just with votes from his own caucus.

But this still opens Democrats up to fury from their constituents. You had a chance to take out McCarthy, and you sat on your hands instead? What kind of a representative are you, allowing such a spineless man to remain in charge?

Any protestations that this was merely a procedural move to save face, while not technically being an affirmative vote for McCarthy, isn’t likely to land well. It’s hard to explain, and even worse, these Democrats might have to vote “present” over and over as challenges to McCarthy continue to be brought. Nor is it clear there are enough Democrats willing to vote “present” to overcome the “yes” votes. Remember, it takes two “present” votes to bring the threshold for a majority down by one point.

Further, Jeffries would have to grant permission for caucus members to vote “present” instead of no. But if they actually do so, any unified messaging also could get rather messy, especially as the press rush to interview Democratic members who appear to support McCarthy.

The party-line way

Speaker Emeritus Nancy Pelosi has cautioned Democrats against getting involved in an internecine fight. Let the Republicans sort out their own mess, she has advised, and don’t get involved. But in all respects, follow the direction of your leader!

This approach has its advantages. Democrats are supposed to support Democrats and to vote against Republican extremists. This way, the messaging is cleaner. Honor and principles are preserved.

And in any event, parties should be able to choose their own leaders in the House, because that’s the way the House is set up: for rule by majority. A “consensus” government would collapse rather quickly because of easily shifting alliances, backbiting and lack of party discipline.

The drawback is that if McCarthy really is deposed by his own party this week, that will leave the House rudderless with less than 45 days to elect a new leader and then pass 11 more appropriation bills. If history is any guide, there will be no one person who can step in to lead—at least no one who can garner the support of more than half the House, assuming all Democrats vote for Jeffries as they did before. We may even wind up with McCarthy again on a reelection bid. Barring that, the House could find itself without leadership during a critical budget time.

That said, if you want to demonstrate to voters that the GOP is unfit to lead, this is a clear way to do so. Eventually, they will either force another shutdown, reelect the same guy, or put up someone even more extreme who will do no better than McCarthy. Whoever leads the House will have to reconcile the House budget bill with the Senate bill—likely meaning another shutdown or another capitulation by the next GOP Speaker, whoever it is.

I trust Pelosi’s advice. The crisis in government right now is one of the GOP’s own making. If they cannot resolve it, the country will suffer pain, but that has a way of clarifying who has committed it. The solution to that pain is to vote them out next November, and not to give them lifelines so that they can claim they were effective leaders.

We already know how this story in the House ends, no matter who the Speaker is. The GOP will arrive back at political equilibrium and pass the budget that the Senate already approved, or they will cause havoc until the voters force them to do so. Because that outcome is more or less preordained, Democrats are best off letting the dysfunction play itself out in the Republican side of the chamber, and stand ready to step in to vote for bipartisan bills, not GOP Speakers, to actually benefit the country.