The Unprecedented Downfall of Kevin McCarthy: A Historical Anomaly

This story was previously featured in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To receive it directly in your email, you can sign up for free at this link.

Kevin McCarthy has lost his position as House speaker. Following his support for a spending bill to maintain government funding last week, McCarthy faced backlash from conservative members of the GOP and was voted out of power on Tuesday.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida, submitted a "motion to vacate" in the House, while Democrats chose not to save McCarthy's speakership. McCarthy, a California Republican, lost the backing of eight fellow Republicans, making him the speaker with the third-shortest stint. On Tuesday evening, he announced his decision not to seek re-election. This unprecedented "motion to vacate" vote, which is the first of its kind in over a century and the first to be successful, has plunged the House into chaos.

Below are excerpts from my conversation with Joseph Postell, a politics professor at Hillsdale College, who has written about the Revolt of 1910. This instance, involving House Speaker Joseph Cannon, shares some resemblances with McCarthy's ouster. However, it is important to note that Cannon's position as speaker was never questioned. The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity:

(Note: Actual conversation content is missing in the provided instruction)

Whats the difference between whats happening now and what happened in 1910?

WOLF: Why is this the first time this happened since 1910?

POSTELL: Technically, this is the initial occurrence where the motion to vacate or motion to declare the speakership vacant has been raised in order to secure a vote on the floor since 1910. Consequently, in that regard, this vote has only proceeded a second time.

WOLF: However, Cannon (unlike McCarthy) was never at risk of losing his position, correct?

POSTELL: Indeed, Cannon initiated the vote himself. He was the one who requested it. This is the key distinction here - Cannon deliberately triggered the vote to highlight the opportunistic tactics of his opposition. It was a demonstration of principled leadership on his part, whereas McCarthy, on the other hand, had this thrust upon him. Thus, the disparity between the two is substantial.

Now, the general overview of the events in 1910:

The Republican Party is internally split between progressives and conservatives, although the divisions today are clearly distinct. Joseph Cannon, a conservative speaker, effectively hindered the progressive faction within his party. At the time, the Democratic Party offered little opportunity for the progressives to switch sides as it was not significantly more progressive, and may even have been less so. Consequently, their only option was to challenge their own party from within.

In 1910, the speaker held a position similar to that of a czar. The distinction lies in the fact that Cannon possessed czar-like authority, whereas McCarthy does not.

The speaker's authority was established on three main pillars in 1910: the right to grant recognition, the ability to select chairs and members of committees, and control over the Rules Committee. However, the speaker does not wield the same level of power today. Consequently, progressives could potentially be excluded from the policy-making process entirely.

George Norris, a progressive representative from Nebraska, proposed a resolution aiming to curtail the speaker's complete authority over the Rules Committee. After three days of deliberation, the resolution was successfully passed. Consequently, in the following year, further limitations were placed on the speaker's powers. This pivotal moment in 1910, including the vote to remove Cannon, marked a significant milestone in the history of the House of Representatives, potentially altering the balance of power for the speakership.

The end of the czar speaker era

WOLF: Because the speaker lost power?

POSTELL: The era of the czar speakers came to an end.

WOLF: Have they managed to rebuild their power in the years since? Gingrich, a former Republican Speaker, regained some influence, and Pelosi, a former Democratic Speaker, exerted even more authority than many recent speakers. Will this be a turning point for McCarthy, where he loses some of what has been rebuilt, or will something else occur?

POSTELL: While some powers have been returned to the speaker over the past four decades, it is my argument that the speaker has not regained any kind of czar power. This episode exemplifies this, partly because the motion to vacate always looms over the speaker nowadays. It certainly loomed over (John) Boehner, Paul Ryan, and then McCarthy. I believe we are still in an era of weak speakers, even though certain powers have been reclaimed. This is a point of contention between me and other scholars.

The argument for stronger speakers

WOLF: Can you elaborate on your point about the need for a more powerful speaker?

POSTELL: In my view, the structure of the American Congress is intentionally designed to promote gridlock, fragmentation, and the difficulty of achieving a majority. This concept is best highlighted in Federalist Number 10, which is widely regarded as one of the most notable essays from the Federalist Papers. It argues for a fragmented and gridlocked Congress as a deliberate choice.

The challenge lies in effectively forming a majority coalition and rallying its members to support a shared agenda. In the modern context, this can be achieved through the establishment and maintenance of political parties that are adept at constructing and sustaining such alliances. Effective leadership within these parties plays a crucial role in governing on behalf of the collective, thereby enhancing the authority of Congress vis-à-vis the executive branch. This approach would foster greater productivity within Congress, incentivize negotiation and compromise between the two parties, as party leaders prioritize effective governance over the individual ambitions of congressional members who may focus on campaigning, fundraising, or superficial legislative activities.

Republicans and Democrats are vastly different than they were in 1910

WOLF: You mentioned that in 1910, there was a similar situation where the Republican majority was divided in two. How have the parties changed since then? They have undergone such a complete realignment that some have suggested that the Republicans of that time resemble the Democrats of today. Do you agree with that?

POSTELL: To a certain extent, although I believe that the current issues are so distinct that it becomes difficult to establish direct connections between the two.

In the early 20th century, the older parties were significantly stronger compared to today. They possessed patronage and had more campaign finance resources directly linked to the parties rather than independent groups. Additionally, they had the authority to control the nominations of their congressional candidates. Consequently, the parties held considerably more power a century ago. Conversely, in the present day, the parties have considerably less influence over campaign finance and nominations. This weakening of party control is one of the key factors contributing to the decreased influence of the speaker compared to the time of Cannon.

What would Cannon say about McCarthy?

WOLF: How do you think Cannon would view whats happening to McCarthy?

POSTELL: I believe Cannon would urge McCarthy to be more courageous and acknowledge that failure is a realistic possibility. He should be prepared to step down from public life when necessary...

Cannon remained composed when taking risks in 1910 because he did not view his political career as the sole focus of his life. He was content with retiring from public service and pursuing financial opportunities in the private sector. The politicians of that era were willing to risk their careers to take a principled stand and accepted the outcome. They didn't view life outside of politics as a form of punishment, but rather were willing to be more daring. From Cannon's perspective, McCarthy has been too cautious in his actions.

Where history is repeating itself

The downfall of recent Republican leaders and speakers has been influenced by a recurring issue, resembling a historical pattern. Removing a speaker through this type of vote is unprecedented, but it consistently occurs due to their inability to manage and control the Freedom Caucus wing. How should Republicans effectively address this challenge?

POSTELL: It is difficult to provide a definitive answer to that question since it is challenging to determine what actions Republicans can take to address the situation.

The question assumes that they have some means or ability to influence the current situation. While there are certain measures the parties could consider, such as supporting candidates in primary races who are more inclined towards compromise and collaboration within a coalition, their resources are limited and may not significantly impact the outcome. Therefore, it is truly challenging to identify feasible options for the Republicans.

In considering the problem with a long-term perspective, the most effective approach would be to prioritize the reconstruction of the party.

As a project extending over a significant period, it entails a concentrated effort towards revitalizing the state parties, thereby establishing stronger ties with the party's supporters. The root of this problem lies in the fact that a considerable number of Republican base members do not perceive the party as their true representative.

What kind of speaker has McCarthy been?

WOLF: As we discuss (prior to the vote on Tuesday to remove McCarthy), his fate remains uncertain. However, how would you currently rank his brief tenure as speaker among the other House speakers?

POSTELL: He has effectively handled a challenging role by decentralizing authority and appointing Rules Committee members who align with the Freedom Caucus. In comparison to Boehner and Ryan, he has demonstrated a strong willingness to collaborate with the Freedom Caucus. While he was compelled to do so, he has remained true to his commitments, making him commendable for navigating such complicated circumstances.