House GOP Desperation: Turning to Democrats for a Way Out

A version of this story appears in CNNs What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.

OK, whats plan D?

If you're not up to date with the chaotic events unfolding on Capitol Hill or have lost track of the dysfunction drama, here's a brief summary of why the House of Representatives is currently experiencing a state of paralysis:

- Plan A fell through due to repercussions faced by those in power. Conservative Republicans removed Rep. Kevin McCarthy from his position as House speaker candidate. McCarthy had dedicated years to strategizing his path to this role. His downfall came when he enlisted the support of Democrats to pass a temporary funding bill that aimed to keep the government operational last month.

Plan B did not succeed because a valuable lesson was learned. In the initial round of voting to replace McCarthy and obtain majority support from Republicans, Rep. Steve Scalise, McCarthys No. 2, was unsuccessful. However, Scalise chose not to engage in any negotiation or deal-making to secure the position. As a result, he will continue to serve as the House majority leader.

Plan C, on the other hand, was unsuccessful due to the divisive nature of the right wing. Despite Rep. Jim Jordan, a founding member of the hardline Freedom Caucus, making efforts to rally the party in two rounds of voting, the right-wing media machine, including a relentless pressure campaign, and personal lobbying by Fox News host Sean Hannity, they were unable to achieve unity among Republicans.

Rep. Jim Jordan failed in the initial round of voting for the position of Speaker of the House on the floor of the House of Representatives at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on Tuesday.

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

The most important thing to know about Jim Jordan

Jordan may consider calling for another vote, but it seems that opposition to him is actually increasing instead of diminishing. As the clock continues to tick on the short-term funding bill until November 17, there seems to be a growing momentum to grant additional authority to Rep. Patrick McHenry, the temporary placeholder for the position of House speaker. What sets McHenry apart is his apparent lack of genuine interest in the job itself.

Following McCarthy's removal, McHenry was promoted to the position of powerless temporary speaker, also known as the speaker pro tempore. While he can maintain the House in session, he does not possess the capability to pass any legislation.

Elevating McHenry would probably require Democrats help

In a move to address the spending bill, Democrats are considering granting temporary power to open the House, even after declining to support McCarthy's position within his Republican conference.

"It is essential that we grant Patrick McHenry the temporary authority to lead as the speaker, allowing him to propel the House forward on vital matters, such as providing necessary financial aid to Israel," stated Rep. Mike Lawler, the New York Republican who voted for McCarthy rather than Jordan in both rounds. He made these remarks to CNN's Manu Raju after Jordan's second defeat.

The Hill observes that three former Republican House speakers - Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, and Paul Ryan - all appeared to support the notion of temporarily raising McHenry's position. Gingrich, in a post on his website, stated, "America cannot afford to sit back and let a few destructive Republicans - or even the justified aspirations of well-intentioned individuals - impede the functioning of the system." He suggested that if a permanent speaker cannot be chosen in the coming days, McHenry should assume the role until the new year.

When Raju inquired on Tuesday whether Democrats were receptive to the notion of having someone like McHenry as Speaker, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries responded with a remark that seemed quite welcoming:

"Our current priority is not limited to any specific person, but rather to reestablishing the functionality of the institution," stated Jeffries, while acknowledging his and the Democrats' admiration for McHenry. "In our party, we hold a great deal of respect for him," Jeffries added.

The appointment of a speaker, even if it's an interim one, enjoying bipartisan backing, would mark a significant shift in the House of Representatives' longstanding tradition of partisan speakership throughout history.

A temporary speaker does not solve the leadership crisis

Sarah Binder, a professor at George Washington University and a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, has been sharing on X (formerly known as Twitter) that there is historical precedent for designating a speaker pro tempore in situations where it is not feasible to have a regular speaker.

I inquired by email about the appeal of having a temporary speaker, and she indicated that it is not an ideal choice, but perhaps the most advantageous option given the institutional leadership crisis.

"A vacant speakership, regardless of the cause, indicates a potential crisis within the House," stated Binder, emphasizing the objective of restoring the House's legislative operations.

A speaker elected with bipartisanship is not necessarily a sign of bipartisanship

According to Joseph Postell, a politics professor at Hillsdale College, the fact that some Republicans and Democrats could potentially vote together for empowering McHenry does not imply a decrease in partisanship on Capitol Hill (emphasis on the could; this is a very fluid situation). Postell, who has previously discussed the unprecedented nature of Republicans turning on McCarthy, actually predicts an intensification of partisanship if the House speaker were to permanently hold a less powerful position.

"If the Speaker were to assume a neutral role as the presiding officer," Postell explained via email, "the Majority Leader would probably assume a significant amount of the power currently held by the Speaker."

Furthermore, Postell noted that the Majority Leader is a highly partisan position, elected solely by the majority party and not the entire House.

"This would make the leadership position more partisan, not less partisan," he said.