Kevin’s House

A quasi-defense of an execrable leader.

By
237
Rep. Kevin McCarthy at a news conference on December 14, 2022, in Washington. (Photo by Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images.)

I rise to defend Kevin McCarthy from Liz Cheney. And from my boss.

If reading that felt awkward, imagine how it felt to write it.

When two honorable conservatives point the finger at one of America’s least honorable politicians, the rooting interests are clear. In a party teeming with amoral opportunists, McCarthy is the supreme specimen. He dreamed for years of being speaker of the House, and as the right’s populist revolution turned the GOP into a party by and for demagogues, he undertook to make whatever moral compromises were necessary to protect his ambition.

Many others have done the same, but few did so with such gusto to have earned a nickname from Donald Trump reflecting Trump’s sense of personal ownership.

Never once has McCarthy betrayed a hint of ambivalence about it. He’s the very model of an unprincipled careerist sellout. If Liz Cheney is matter, “My Kevin” is antimatter.

So her contempt for him is natural, and would have been natural even if McCarthy hadn’t led the coup within the House Republican conference that ousted Cheney from her place in leadership. On Sunday she appeared on Face the Nation to comment on the ongoing fiasco within the House GOP majority and to lay blame for it at McCarthy’s feet.

“This is correct,” The Dispatch’s own Steve Hayes tweeted about Cheney’s comments.

Is it?

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
237
By
Comments (237)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Stevenreedcurtis

    I'm more inclined to think of McCarthy and others as having choices between bad and horrible. Yes, we could do better in whom we elect. However, democracy, for all its strengths, is not about finding the best person for the job.
    So then, was Pence a self-serving compromise, was he a self-sacrificing babysitter, or a mixture of the two?

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    PaulH

    McCarthy is definitely a weasel, but I tend to agree that his speakership is more of a symptom of the problems with the House GOP than a root cause. He managed to run the House decently for 9 months and it is difficult to figure out how someone else would have done better. If McCarthy really was the problem then it should be easy to find someone better to replace him. Obviously it hasn't been. The degree to which the GOP is flailing about hoping to find someone who can get 217 strongly suggests that McCarthy was much better than his critics admit. All of which doesn't change the fact that he is a weasel.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Mike B

    I think this is going to end sooner or later either with Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker or a moderate with support from both parties. I don't see how the Republican impasse is broken with only four or five hardliners holding veto power.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      PaulH

      I really doubt that is going to happen; I think it is more likely that the moderates will hold their nose and support someone acceptable to the Trumpy side of the House. Gym Jordan stank too much and was such an obvious electoral liability (and a jerk to boot) that they couldn't support him. But Johnson might be barely acceptable and, in fact, preferably to Jeffries -- even for moderates.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Mike B

        You called it! Well done.

        Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Mike B

    Just saw a NYT "breaking news" email (presumably better sourced and vetted than the Gaza hospital story) that Emmer withdrew after the Freedom Caucus refused to support him and Trump posted an insulting "Truth" post against him.

    Collapse
  5. Wes.Bridges

    At this point I cannot think of a single House member I'd want to hold the power of the Speaker. I'd say draft Mitch Daniels as an outsider, but he's a decent human being, not at all execrable, and therefore unqualified for the job. Plus, no one in the House would be able to get Governor Daniels past their grossly inflated egos.

    Collapse
  6. Peajay66

    This stalemate is going to continue as long as these two irreconcilable groups try to caucus together. The only way things will move forward is for the "normies" (delightful to see that term beginning to stick) seem to have two choices: expel the MAGAs from the GOP Caucus or leave the GOP themselves to form their own "conservative" or "federalist" caucus. That would leave three groups in the House, none having an absolute majority. If all three fielded their own candidate for speaker, no one would have an automatic majority and would need to reach out to members of another caucus for support. Perhaps some moderate Dems could take this chance to put some distance between themselves and the extremes in their party. It's uncharted territory, but there's no reason the House can't have more than two caucuses.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Mike B

      "Perhaps some moderate Dems could take this chance to put some distance between themselves and the extremes in their party."

      Or some moderate Republicans, for that matter. It would only take 12 either voting present or not voting in order for Jeffries to be elected by a unified Democratic caucus.

      Then we could thank Matt Gaetz and the bomb-throwers for handing the House to a Democratic Speaker!

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Chris

        Allowing Jeffries to become speaker would rightfully be called treason to the right. Gaetz may want to play with fire but we should remain conservatives

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          PaulH

          Yes, one could see the moderates throwing their weight behind a truly moderate Democrat but not Jeffries who is quite progressive.

          Collapse
      2. Peajay66

        My problem is the platform Jeffries would likely work to enact is too dangerous to mess with. Things like the "Equality Act" would give the national government too much power to impose a particular ideology across a diverse country. But then, I deeply lament the Democrats have pushed the country so far to the left the Hyde Amendment is considered very (maybe extreme) right wing. It seems reasonable to me we should at least be able to agree the government shouldn't be using tax dollars to support abortion access. Those who are concerned about poor women having access to abortion should get together with their friends should start their own charitable foundation to support it rather than use the power of the government to make all of us contribute to it.
        We might thank Matt Gaetz for electing Jeffries speaker, but that's because we're deeply involved in the minutiae of political processes. But that's not how it's going to play with the larger electorate, which is a dangerous thing. That's why I think a consensus candidate who's not Jordan or McCarthy or Jeffries but who can draw support from at least two of the three groups would be a better alternative.

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Citizen60

    Kevin McCarthy would survive a ring wing primary in Bakersfield. Hands down. Even from Devin Nunes.

    I live in a nearby Central Valley District. The hometown favorite is the darling of the owners of the major ag businesses. Their biggest concern is their illegal immigrant farm workers will be deported.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Steve Hayes

    I'm eager to jump in and correct the calumny from my colleague here. But my schedule isn't cooperating. I hope to clear my good name later tonight or tomorrow morning.

    Collapse
  9. Jack.Hammond13

    McCarthy's share of the blame lies in the continual kowtowing to Trump. It invited not just the base of MAGA diehards, but the normie Republicans to think "yeah this is fine". He gave cover to thousands of non-MAGA hats to embrace Trump and MAGA candidates, always with the excuse that this was the price of doing business. The majority of GOP voters are not MAGA hats, but they are Trump-friendly in part because the leaders they looked to for signals became Trump-friendly. The scenarios presented here - McCarthy voting for impeachment, etc. - as examples of things that would have got him ousted were not the only options he had for making moral stands. McCarthy could have chosen to not go down to Mar-a-Largo and kiss the ring in the wake of January 6th. He wouldn't have been primaried for that, his district isn't that conservative. McCarthy (and others) made choices over the last 7 years that led to this, choices that led to the Republican party gradually surrendering to a minority of its voters. That's why this is still his fault.

    Collapse
  10. Dfstarr

    What irks me about Cheney’s critique is that it exculpates Republican voters for the incentive structure they’ve created for their leaders.

    This hits upon the largest issue. I can't think of anything more disheartening or disorienting since 2015 than the manner in which ostensibly intelligent and rational people in most of the rest of their life's endeavors became held in thrall to the cult of Trump. What is a candidate for elective office to do? They can hold firm to their principles when the base howls for the unhinged populist extremism and probably lose the primary. Or toe that line and unless it's an extremely red district lose the general.

    Like the saying goes, "people get the government they voted for" and a whole lot of voters evidently want the ignorant, unhinged populism of the Trump cult.

    Collapse
Load More