Home » Johnson is elected Speaker

Comments

Johnson is elected Speaker — 13 Comments

  1. My pessimistic side thinks the next two years are going to be extremely disappointing with tons of executive orders that will be great but also can also be quickly done away with by President Newsom or whoever and very little actual law making because of this tiny majority and the handful of Republicans at both ends of the party that seem to be clueless to what the people that elected them want.

  2. @ Griffin > Many are not clueless so much as they are opposed.

    Others I grant may be ignorant, because listening to constituents instead of to big donors and lobbyists is hard work with less pay-off (in both the symbolic and real senses of the term).

    And on the gripping hand, not every constituent in their districts voted for them, and they may actually be more ideologically aligned with the minority (after all, politicians are known to lie to get elected).

    This is why a competent, hard-edged Speaker ‘s who will drive legislation to match the president’s priorities is absolutely necessary for any stable changes to occur (no changes are permanent in a representative government system).

  3. … ideologically aligned with the minority… — AesopFan

    I agree with AesopFan. However, while some may be ideologically motivated, I suspect there are at least a couple or few that are so crass and venal that they are simply bought and paid for. And/or threatened. We are talking about politicians. Many of whom crave the spotlight and all the superficialities that such as life can bring.

  4. I mostly agree with Massie and Roy (who did vote for Johnson this time) but they too often fall for the ‘perfect is the enemy of the good’ trap and that is all fine and dandy when you have a 20-30 seat majority but when it’s like a 1-2 seat majority that is unacceptable.

    Same goes for some of the senators also.

  5. Johnson is a terrific Speaker.
    Democrats, like Stalinists, are 100% opposed to him. Democrats are, as I have posted before, stupid, ignorant or evil. See Dopey Joe Biden as a sine qua non.

  6. Just read the Judge in the NY trail is set to sentence Trump, before swearing in.
    What a travesty.

  7. “With the GOP’s razor-thin majority, unity was necessary and no other candidate was viable.”

    Very true. That reality gives rise to two questions; to what service will the ‘unity’ Johnson will presumably seek be put? And why is Johnson the ‘only’ viable candidate? The former question only time will answer and much will depend upon how closely Trump keeps the feet of congressional republicans to the MAGA fire. The latter, the natural result of a dysfunctional politic.

  8. Neo is right that the objections were pure theater. It really gets a bit exhausting and I’m very pleased it was nipped in the bud fairly quickly.

    There was no viable alternative to Johnson. Period. Just like there was no viable alternative to McCarthy; Johnson emerged after a protracted and embarrassing struggle. That was at least viable in October of a non election year. To instigate such a struggle right before certifying electoral results of a President of the same party who, in a very rare moment, has a bit of a honeymoon and is enjoying a slight amount of goodwill….that would be monstrous stupidity.

    And for what? Abstract principles? Maybe. Bit the cynical side of me wonders if Self and Norman are looking to follow Gaetz’s example: some media sinecure, paying seven to eight figures for very little work.

    The old adage holds: Liberals use wealth to gain (and keep) power. Conservatives use power to gain wealth. Very frustrating

  9. The old adage holds: Liberals use wealth to gain (and keep) power. Conservatives use power to gain wealth. Very frustrating

    Hmm, I would have put it the other way around. Liberals (Pelosi, Biden, Obama) somehow get rich while allegedly in “public service.” Trump, at least, got rich first and then ran for office (and probably lost money while he was president).

  10. @ Jimmy – the maxim needs some updating, since all of the classic “liberals” are running from the Democrat Party (some to the GOP, but not all), and the GOP is notable for not being 100% pure conservatives.

    “Politicians use wealth to gain (and keep) power. Politicians also use power to gain wealth.”

    Works for both parties, except for occasional very rare outliers like President Trump. AFAIK he donated his salary to charity last year, and (mirabile dictu!) has not yet been indicted for the insider trading practiced by most of Congress, so there probably is even less evidence for that than in the other trumped-up cases against him.

  11. A fundamental problem we’re facing is the same one that’s ‘clogged’ the system for decades. Traditionally, when a serious third party movement starts to rise, or a new ideological movement begins to become potent, one of the Big Two parties or the other absorbs its more moderate members, sidelining the extremes, and thus the new faction gets some of what they want and the ship of state sails on more or less steadily.

    That dynamic operated throughout most of American history. The other major Western polities have their own versions of it. But over the last few decades, that system has clogged up everywhere, as the entrenched powers that be join hands with their supposed opposite parties to lock out all the would-be changers. We see it in America where both parties keep trying to refuse to change _any_ of the neoliberal consensus. We see it in Europe where ‘grand coalitions’ keep forming in defense, more or less, of the _status quo_.

    The problem is that personnel are policy. It would be fairly easy for the GOP to make themselves a natural-majority party, but doing do would mean that a lot of the current dominant figures would become what the Brits call ‘back benchers’. The John McCains and the Mitch McConnell’s and the rest of their ilk could still be Republicans, but they wouldn’t be _running_ such a natural-majority GOP.

    Ditto the Dems. The Party could sideline the radical left social agenda, focus on their traditional working-class agendas, in effect dumb McGovern and Obama in favor of an update FDR/Truman approach. It would be sort of a repeat of when FDR expelled Wallace from the Dems, and created a political force that dominated US politics from the 1930s to the 1970s.

    But again, that would mean the current leadership and dominant factions in the Democratic Party would have to be backbenched. Personnel is policy, and the current bipartisan ruling class doesn’t want change.

    So the system is clogged.

  12. Liberals Democrats use wealth to gain (and keep) power. Conservatives Republicans use power to gain wealth.
    I changed it because few Democrats are “liberal,” and many Republicans are not conservative.

    AesopFan wrote
    “Politicians use wealth to gain (and keep) power. Politicians also use power to gain wealth.”
    Works for both parties, except for occasional very rare outliers like President Trump.

    OK, but I think the original version is better, because so many Republican politicians don’t mind if the party loses
    power, as long as they keep their own jobs, and the financial benefits thereof.

  13. We basically want to allow anyone to justifiably get wealthier, and we want to constrain or control the ability of those with power or in power to move against our preferences or our best interests.

    With that in mind, I find those proposals to deny members of Congress the right and ability to invest in stocks to be short sighted, and probably illegal if not implemented wisely.
    1) if the problem is insider trading, then limit them to buying and selling stocks one week after they announce that they plan to do so. Perhaps even require them to state why they are doing so: “I see a great future in energy”, or “I have to cash out to pay for my child’s college”, or … Everyone else paying attention is then able to buy or sell prior to them, so no insider advantage. This restriction can apply to the stocks they already owned prior to beginning public service, and the requirement might even extend for a few weeks after they leave office.

    2) we also want to incentivize as many people as can manage it to become wise investors, not speculators, so having our leaders set that example should be desirable.

    3) we have laws about property rights, but those laws do allow for some relaxation of absolute control over your property in all cases, or at all times.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>