Quo Vadis GOP?

[Tamas]

Is this effectively a split in the coalition? Are MAGA and regular Republicans now at irreconcilable differences? In a parliamentary system, would the US have new elections now?

Maybe it's the final act of the GOP turning into what I'll call the Tea Party. It is deeply satisfying to see this play out as it seems to be one of the repeating themes of politics. The moderate right gave ground to their lunatic fringe (plus the grifters latching on to such cults) because they thought they could control them. Just to be consumed by them entirely. Now not only the "moderates" cannot control the (previous) fringe, the fringe has stopped tolerating the moderate's existence in what was previously their party, and will succeed driving them out (already has, one could argue).

[Sheilbh]

Maybe it's the final act of the GOP turning into what I'll call the Tea Party. It is deeply satisfying to see this play out as it seems to be one of the repeating themes of politics. The moderate right gave ground to their lunatic fringe (plus the grifters latching on to such cults) because they thought they could control them. Just to be consumed by them entirely. Now not only the "moderates" cannot control the (previous) fringe, the fringe has stopped tolerating the moderate's existence in what was previously their party, and will succeed driving them out (already has, one could argue).

I'm not sure moderate or fringe or even radical or regular Republicans is the right framing for the GOP.

I don't see why they'd split. But it reminds you of the line about modern conservatism that it's about in groups who the law protects but does not bind and out groups who the law binds but does not protect.

Party unity and the rules of normal politics protects the MAGA wing does not bind them, for the rest of the GOP they bind but don't protect.

Is this effectively a split in the coalition? Are MAGA and regular Republicans now at irreconcilable differences? In a parliamentary system, would the US have new elections now?

Probably not. Mapping across the Speaker as effectively a PM (which doesn't really work because POTUS is head of government and head of state, plus the Senate is equal), you'd normally have a period in which to negotiate a new government. American congressional election cycles are quicker than some of those government formation periods - looking at you Belgium On the other hand the rules used to require a super-majority to remove a Speaker and McCarthy agreed to get rid of that in order to get elected so in some ways they've moved closer to a parliamentary system.

In the UK, it's a constitutional principle that there must always be a PM. Removing a PM isn't a standalone thing - it would basically mean the government couldn't continue to govern because they didn't have a majority in the house (so purdah rules would kick in and the civil service would run the country) until there was either an election, or someone could form a majority. In other countries I think it's similar - so I think in Belgium the outgoing PM stays on as PM while negotiations are undertaken before a new one is elected, other countries have formal interim PMs or the "formateur" role assumes that position during negotiations. I don't think it's normally written down but in all cases whoever is PM in those situations doesn't have the full power of their office - they're in office but not in power, which I think describes McCarthy's position pretty well.

And I think something similar is happening here. There's a Speaker of the House Pro Tempore - and you can tell we're in historically uncharted territory because until yesterday that office didn't even have a Wikipedia page Apparently it was created in the rules after 9/11 - I think as above that's an automatic appointment (maybe based on seniority? ) with limited powers.

[Tamas]

I didn't say they'd split. I am saying the MAGA wing is now the party.

[Sheilbh]

Sorry that bit was more about Hami's post. I agree.

[frunk]

I didn't say they'd split. I am saying the MAGA wing is now the party.

This was inevitable from 2016 when anti-Trumpers were shunned from the party.

[Sheilbh]

I somehow feel this isn't the end - I'm still waiting for the indictment on stealing puppies from the Amish:

Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
BREAKING: George Santos has just been hit with a 23-count superseding indictment.

Santos faces: "one count of conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, two counts of wire fraud, two counts of making materially false statements to the FEC, two counts of falsifying records submitted to obstruct the FEC, two counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of access device fraud."

[PDH]

Weird that the Republican Party couldn't spot a grifter.

[Jacob]

 

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11uWROHQHCs&t=88s

Very dubious accusations that Lauren Boebert worked as a hooker and had abortions.

[The Minsky Moment]

If true it would finally prove her critics wrong.  She really has provided services to her district.

[viper37]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11uWROHQHCs&t=88s

Very dubious accusations that Lauren Boebert worked as a hooker and had abortions.

June 2022.

It's been kinda debunked since then.  At least, there's no evidence she did it.

[jimmy olsen]

Scalise threw in the towel. Just ridiculous.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/12/house-speaker-vote/

He should have at least tried, see if multiple ballots wear down the opposition.
That's how these things work.
And if you're not gaining, well...things will probably break someone's way eventually. Maybe Jordan's, maybe a darkhorse. But you have to get out there and have the votes.
Multiple votes, every day for a week or two and they will start to shift in favor of someone.

And if they can't, like it's 1855, then you will at least have proof, instead of just throwing up your hands in the air and giving up before you begin

[Sheilbh]

Totally random question - the Speaker Pro Temp role invented post-9/11 but I believe only being filled for the first time now...where are they on the presidential succession? Do they basically step into the speaker's shoes or, because it's such a limited role, is it treated differently?

[jimmy olsen]

Totally random question - the Speaker Pro Temp role invented post-9/11 but I believe only being filled for the first time now...where are they on the presidential succession? Do they basically step into the speaker's shoes or, because it's such a limited role, is it treated differently?

I think they don't count, but I'm not sure

[jimmy olsen]

A quick google has some newspapers saying clearly not, while others saying probably not, so if it came down to that constitutional crisis if McHenry was willing to make it one?

Clearly not
https://www.businessinsider.com/kevin-mccarthy-ouster-line-of-succession-house-speaker-vacant-2023-10

Probably not
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/04/patrick-mchenry-house-speaker-mccarthy/