Last week, John Boehner (R-Ohio) easily won re-election as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Only 25 Republicans turned out, 216 of them voting for him. In the days before the election, social media was abuzz with emails and voting activity urging members of Congress to remove Boehner. After the vote, conservative talk show hosts were outraged, denouncing Republicans who voted for him as RINOs and traitors. Even beloved conservative members of Congress, like Utah’s Mia Love, didn’t escape angerTea Party favorite Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) did not participate in the vote but said he would vote for Boehner.
It didn’t make sense to many why conservative Republicans would settle for another term for the compromise Boehner, given that Republicans now control both chambers. In Arizona, the most conservative members of the delegation voted to keep Boehner: Rep. David Schweikert, Rep. Matt Salmon and Rep. Trent Franks. Only Rep. Paul Gosar, who has the lowest American Conservative Union rating of the four, voted against Boehner. Newly elected Republican Rep. Martha McSally of Tucson also voted for Boehner. After the vote, some conservative activists in Arizona began calling Gosar the only real conservative in the delegation. Something was wrong. I called Rep. Schweikert to get to the bottom of it.
He told me the vote was largely ceremonial. The real decision was made six weeks ago, at the House Republican Conference. After that, it was too slow to convince most members to change their minds; deals were made. Anyone who agreed to change their vote after that could not be trusted based on past experience. South Carolina Rep. Mick Mulvaney confirmed this in a post on his Facebook page. Two years ago, Boehner’s opposition collected signed pledges from enough members of Congress to defeat him. But when it came time to vote, nearly half of them changed their minds.
At the last minute, the flood of emails came from conservative organizations trying to make money by outraging conservatives. While it’s critical for these groups to raise money, it was a rather sneaky way to do it. By then, it was too slow, it was the wrong fight, and it provoked arguments with conservative members of Congress that could have been avoided.
Conservatives like Schweikert have been trying to get Boehner out for much longer than a few days last week. He told me he has been working on his removal for two years. Where was the outcry six weeks ago when the real decision was made? Where were the feigning outrage the past two years when the actual work needed to get Boehner out was being done?
One unfortunate side effect of the rise of social media, blogs, and email is the ability for people to send emotional outbursts on a particular topic as their chosen activism. Instead of GOTV (Get Out The Vote), it’s now GOYO (Get Out Your Opinion). Activists have replaced the demanding, monotonous, but necessary work behind the scenes with speeches. Unfortunately, there’s only so much room at the top for a few national talk show hosts to vent.
Replacing Boehner is much more challenging and complicated than a last-minute explosion. Getting better leadership won’t be achieved with a tiny, catchy soundbite. It’s a deeper, two-part systemic problem.
The first part of the problem is that nobody wants to be speaker. Most people don’t realize that the speaker’s primary job is to raise funds. The speaker spends almost all of his time flying around the country, working on steep fundraising events. Most of the names came up at the last minute because Boehner’s successors couldn’t – or wouldn’t – keep their word. Last year, Boehner raised an impressive $100 million. Rep. Mulvaney noted that Gohmert wasn’t a realistic candidate; despite all the media attention, he only received three votes. Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) received 12 votes, but has a terrible voting record, even in worse than Boehner. Boehner is actually the most conservative Republican speaker in 50 years.
Many grassroots activists complain when the NRCC doesn’t spend money on races with little chance. They don’t understand that there is only so much money that can be distributed, and getting it depends on the speaker’s ability to raise it. If grassroots activists aren’t willing to write substantial checks, it’s imperative that the speaker be someone with charisma who doesn’t mind spending a significant portion of his life on an airplane.
The second systemic problem is that Congress has become so corrupt that it is now beyond reform. Older members of Congress are so entrenched in leadership positions, as committee and subcommittee chairs, that these “cardinals” retaliate against anyone who dares to challenge the status quo and the power structure. A conservative reformer like Schweikert, who would actually make an excellent speaker, has no chance of getting the job because he has defied the ancient guard. He lost his position on the influential Financial Services Committee because he defied party leadership and voted against raising the debt ceiling.
Unfortunately, recent reformers like Schweikert eventually become disillusioned and eventually leave office. However, if they can persevere, the ancient guard will eventually leave office.
Casting a protest vote for anyone other than Boehner was futile. It simply increased the target on the backs of reforming members of Congress. Several who opposed him, including Daniel Webster and Richard Nugent, both of Florida, were immediately dismantled positions in their committees, and there are even more on the cut-off list.
Contrary to talk show hype, the speaker’s vote did not pit conservatives against leaders. It would be more accurately described as symbolic of reformers and establishment cardinals.
Schweikert may be the smartest member of Congress. He has also been consistently ranked as one of the five most conservative members by various organizations, with a lifetime rating of 98.67 from the American Conservative Union. It is illogical to label him a RINO by one vote, while other Republicans get away with much lower scores simply because they did not vote for Boehner.
Reforming Congress is like playing chess. You can’t eliminate the king right away, you have to prepare the ground to eliminate the king, or you’re out of the game. Those who run for office know that you rarely win by running for president first, you have to win at the grassroots level first. Of course, the same goes for eliminating the speaker, what’s so demanding to understand about that? You have to break down the power structure that supports him before you can take him down.
Instead of criticizing conservative members of Congress under Boehner, activists should be scheduling meetings with these reformers and asking how they can facilitate in the day-to-day work of cleaning up Congress. It may not be flashy and glamorous, but the GOYO flashy and glamorous approach is not working. Stop playing around.
