Boehner wins third term as speaker, but will rocky vote hurt ability to lead?

On Tuesday, 25 hard-line Republicans voted against John Boehner of Ohio for his third term as speaker – the largest number of in-party desertions in the modern history of voting for the speakership.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP/File
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, in Dec. Republicans remain in charge of the House, but it won’t be the same Republicans leading many committees. Boehner is poised to run the chamber for the fifth straight year, but nine committees are getting new heads, providing an opportunity for fresh faces to make an impact on issues such as defense, government spending and taxes.

It was a more stinging rebuke than expected. On the first day of the 114th Congress on Tuesday, when House Republicans were celebrating their biggest majority since the Great Depression, 25 hard-line Republicans failed to support John Boehner of Ohio for his third term as speaker.

It was more than twice the defections he saw in his previous election in 2013 – and the largest number of in-party desertions in the modern history of voting for the speakership.

The blow wasn’t enough to knock Congressman Boehner from his perch: He still won a majority of the votes of those cast, 216 out of 408. It was, though, an “embarrassment” and an unnecessary and ill-timed sign of “disloyalty,” Boehner’s supporters said.

Just how much of a problem does this rebellion pose for the speaker – and for his pledge to show that Republicans can govern? 

As he said in a short speech after the vote, he wants to “prove the skeptics wrong” and show Americans that “the logjam is breaking.”

By the raw numbers, 25 is not enough to trip up the GOP leadership when it comes to passing legislation. With their new majority of 246 seats, Republicans can afford to lose 28 of their own and still reach the 218 votes needed to pass a bill without having to round up Democratic votes. But even with a larger majority, Boehner simply may not have enough votes on certain issues.

Not all of the usual hardliners took part in today’s bold attempt to force balloting to a second round. These representatives may have feared that without a clear compromise candidate, a second round would have triggered stalemate and chaos. Still, those hard-liners who stayed out of this fight could easily rejoin some future legislative battle, thereby forcing Boehner’s hand. 

“The rebels are certainly not a dominant faction, but they’re large enough to cause Boehner trouble,” says John Pitney, a congressional expert at Claremont McKenna College in California. 

Political analysts and House Republicans say Boehner’s options for managing his right flank are limited. As Mr. Pitney puts it, this may end up being a “mix and match speakership,” with Boehner relying sometimes on hard-liners, and sometimes on Democrats, as he did at the end of last year in passing a budget.

One traditional way to deal with internal party division is through carrots and sticks. But one big juicy carrot – earmarks – no longer exists. Another – legislative access to the floor – is not so enticing for a group that appears more interested in stopping things than the give-and-take of legislating. 

Tea party darling Tim Huelskamp (R) of Kansas complained of “retaliation” by the leadership on Tuesday, telling reporters that he was denied the chairmanship of a subcommittee after he tweeted that he was not going to support Boehner. 

Like others in the “hell no” caucus that voted against the Ohioan, he lamented that the speaker promised a more open process in the House – but did the opposite when presenting members with a massive budget in December that had been negotiated behind closed doors and that no one had time to fully read.

Said Representative Huelskamp: “I fear they’re going to shut the process down and have less debate and less opportunities for conservatives than for everybody else.”

Reprimanding the rebels might be counterproductive. That’s a “tough call” for the speaker because he will need hard-liners for other votes, commented former Rep. Tom Davis (R) of Virginia, a Boehner supporter. 

And yet, accommodation of hardliners has proved to have limitations as well.

During last year’s lame-duck session, for example, the GOP leadership allowed hard-liner Ted Yoho (R) of Florida to introduce legislation that nullified the president’s recent executive action on immigration. It passed in the House, but given the Democrat-controlled Senate – and a sure veto from the president – that was the end of it.

Boehner’s overture, however, did not satisfy Mr. Yoho. On Tuesday, he voted against the speaker – and for himself for the job.

As Mr. Davis put it, some hardliners are “encourageable,” while others “will never be there on any votes.”

Indeed, they only hurt themselves when they refuse to bend, because then the leadership is forced to work with Democrats on “a less palatable package,” he said. He cited the December budget, rejected by 67 Republicans, but rescued by 57 Democrats.

It is the fiscal issues – the appropriations process, the upcoming expiration of the nation’s debt limit, and a spending showdown at the Department of Homeland Security over immigration – where Boehner can expect the most pushback from his right flank, say House Republicans.

Those kinds of issues, as well as the GOP's stated bipartisan goals in areas such as trade and taxes, will leave Boehner little choice but to work with Democrats. But that, too, presents its challenges.  The speaker is going to have to balance these things as he takes a mix-and-match approach, weighing which is most costly: working across the aisle or appeasing his right flank.

As Pitney says, “The calculation the speaker will always have in the months ahead is which group is asking too high a price – the Democrats, or the hard cases in his own party?”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Boehner wins third term as speaker, but will rocky vote hurt ability to lead?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2015/0106/Boehner-wins-third-term-as-speaker-but-will-rocky-vote-hurt-ability-to-lead
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe