And about whether the Republicans have long held themselves out to be conservative – actually, that’s not been my impression. Only during the Newt Gingrich years. Otherwise, a big tent has been the thing, and conservatives were seen as Other.

However, they have indeed held themselves out to be more conservative than the Democrats. And that is indeed the case; they are.

So it depends on what you’re comparing them to.

Also, you say that Republican voters are more conservative than the gist of Republican office-holders. That may be true, but I actually don’t know. It certainly is true for people who comment on blogs, and what might be called “the base.” But that’s not even remotely who all the voters are, and although those people are necessary for GOP wins they are not sufficient except in deep red areas. There are lots of more moderate GOP voters or even swing voters; I’m not sure how many but it is usually necessary to gain their votes as well. I think that dilemma has been the case for ages, although in general there’s been movement to the conservative side both in voters and in GOP politicians.

I haven’t picked up a whiff of this from interviews of the “House holdouts” as you put it. I am quite sure they knew from the beginning that the 14 were not NeverKevins, and the fact that there were no more than the twenty Rs after multiple votes opposing McCarthy–that none of the 200 were joining them–clued them by vote four or five that things would likely end up as they have.
They deserve to take satisfaction in what they all accomplished. The House is in a better place than it was on Jan 3.
That new rules package should attract AOC’s vote–and that of every D not in a leadership position.

Dispositionally, it probably is more inclined to a starboard view than it was when Hugh Scott was in charge of the Senate Republican caucus. Of course, the Overton window never stops moving.

Just recently, we had the embarrassing spectacle of John Boehner, a man who openly loathes Ted Cruz, blubbering over Nancy Pelosi at her retirement gathering. There was no reason for him to attend and certainly no reason for him to yammer about how much his seedy daughters admire her. That’s a huge tell about the character and true dispositions of the man House Republicans wanted as their boss.

I’ve been reluctant to ask this, it’s a rabbit hole with respect this issue here. But if you thought about it and wrote about it later, I’d be delighted to read it.

Hasn’t the Republican party been holding itself out as a conservative party since at least the 80s? Would, say, National Review, write a think piece about how Republicans have never been majority conservative but there’s more conservatives all the time and that’s a great trend? (I don’t remember such an article but maybe they have). Definitely the mainstream media paints Republicans as majority conservative, and we know why they do. But I do think most people in America, and certainly most people who vote for Republicans, do expect that the Republicans are and ought to be a conservative party.

So would you agree that (at least on the national level) Republican politicians aren’t really majority conservative but hold themselves out to be, and their voters are majority conservatives and expect their politicians to be?

There’s more than one point of disagreement you might have, so I wouldn’t ask anything further until I knew what you disagreed with there and how, but I do think that on the national level Republican politicians aren’t really majority conservative but hold themselves out to be, and their voters are majority conservatives and expect their politicians to be. Do you also think so?

(I take it further, this is why there is a GOPe that advances the goals of the Left in exchange for pork: partly out of venality and partly because they share some of those aims but can’t be explicit. Pretty sure you don’t agree with that part, but wondering what you think of the first part before getting into that.)

I’m not assuming, I’m predicting.

Also, wouldn’t that have been called – in the olden days – a compromise?

Is compromise a good end in itself? You know it isn’t. What do wolf and sheep compromise on at dinner? You talk of the Left as an existential threat to our Republic–if those aren’t your exact words sorry–so what kinds of compromises should be made with existential threats? (Or if I’m not using your exact words however you want to describe them.)

But I wouldn’t assume that a compromise bill, with something for each party, is always by definition bad and a sellout.

Neither would I, and that’s not what I said. You’ve added “always bad” and you’ve added “by definition”. I’m predicting–not assuming or defining–that the bills that pass both Houses will not contain anything that materially advances conservatism, but will advance Leftist goals, and the reason will be that pork favorable to the GOPe is inserted as a tradeoff. A lot of things that pass will be neutral or symbolic (and those aren’t bad things, just things that fail to advance conservatism materially).

The House will hold the line on some egregious things–but that doesn’t advance conservatism, only fails to roll it back (which is also pretty important). This is a tactic, which we all should have got familiar with after four years of Trump, where you demand something outrageous in order to “compromise” on something you actually wanted. The more outrageous the demands of the Left, the more the GOPe can give up, claiming they “saved” us from the rest. (I call this the “Nordstrom Rack” tactic because their receipts tell you how much you “saved” vs inflated prices.)

The House will cave on some less egregious things which will advance the Left materially, but will get the appropriations they want; and we will be told we need a bigger majority so send money and vote harder. It’s a prediction, will love to be proven wrong.

By what measure?

Sort of. But why such bills would be assumed to not advance conservatism “in any material way” I don’t know. Also, the Republican Party is more conservative than it used to be, but I don’t think it’s majority conservative at this point.

Also, wouldn’t that have been called – in the olden days – a compromise? Because otherwise, nothing would be passed by a Senate controlled by the other party than the House? A compromise to get something for each party?

I’m not saying I would approve of such compromise. I’d have to know a lot more about each piece of legislation. Sometimes no legislation is better than some. But I wouldn’t assume that a compromise bill, with something for each party, is always by definition bad and a sellout.

A bill “the Left wants” could take many forms. One such form is riders on a bill the Right wants. It could also take the form of reconciling a bill passed by the House toward the Senate form preferred by the Left. There’s many ways to make the sausage, and awfully hard to tell what’s in it or how it got there.

I was trying to get clarification on what you meant when you wrote “I predict that [the slim House majority] will not be used to further conservative ends, it will be sold to serve the ends of the Left.”

There is a long, complicated and accountability-diluting process of introducing, crafting, modifying, passing, and reconciling bills as the go through both Houses. The slim House majority will be used judiciously throughout this long, drawn-out, out-of-the-public-eye process to ensure that pork wanted by R’s gets inserted, but not to advance conservatism in any material way.

Does that clarify what I mean sufficiently?

I never said anything about bills in single-issue units. I mentioned “bills the left wants” – are you contesting the idea that there are such bills? I was trying to get clarification on what you meant when you wrote “I predict that [the slim House majority] will not be used to further conservative ends, it will be sold to serve the ends of the Left.”