One more OP for outside-the-beltway types about what just happened

[Recursion]

I'm not trying to declare some inherent wisdom or awesomeness from having worked on the Hill, I just think if you aren't familiar with this, you may not understand the immensity of what has just happened, from a Congressional standpoint.

In countries with Parliaments, the Prime Minister leads a coalition that has only a dubious connection to him. There are generally multiple parties (4 or more) with different axes of agreement and disagreement (so take the UK, where the Lib Dems and Tories are in a coalition on economic grounds, even though the Lib Dems are closer to Labor on many foreign policy and social issues). It is traditional in a parliamentary system like that that the PM will only bring forward a bill if he has enough votes in his own party to pass it. Because, in general if the PM brings forward a bill and it fails, it often means the end of the government and new elections, even on relatively trivial matters.

The US House is (deliberately) not like that. Throughout most of the US House's history, including even Gingrich and Livingston, the Speaker at least would give the appearance of not being beholden to either party, and would leave details of his or her own party's vote to the majority leader and majority whip. As long as he or she had a majority for the bill in the Congress, whatever that majority's party makeup, the Speaker would deliver a bill he or she wanted passed to the floor.

Given that, Speakers have historically had fairly significant power over non-committed members of their parties. They could say "this is a party loyalty vote. you will vote with me on it, because it's going to pass." Members might fuss and kvetch. They might even eventually switch parties. But they would do what they were told.

Boehner has bucked that trend. He has committed to only bringing forward bills that can pass entirely with Republican votes. And so he went from being the kingmaker who controlled his own party (and even to an extent the minority party) to a dupe of his own party.

Looking back, I can't think of a Speaker before Boehner who failed to deliver his own party in a deal he considered important. Boehner has now failed to do this for three major votes. This is personally humiliating for him, which is awesome, but this is also a fundamental change to how the House works, and it will be very interesting to see what the next Speaker (who, I am fairly confident, will not be named John Boehner) does about this.

[patrice]

1. Does this mean that there are now 2 Republican parties? nt

[Recursion]

2. Roughly, yes

And it has little to do with their ideology (they're all pretty much conservative) and more to do with their willingness to accept the realities of Congressional procedure.

[ragemage]

3. we are seeing history in the making

The Republican party is fracturing and splitting right before our eyes. It is basically coming down to crazy and more crazy. The Republicans of even 10 years ago would not be allowed in this party. We are witness to a change in our democracy that has not happened in a very long time. Maybe I am reading into this too much but the Repub party of today will not exist in its present form in the next few years...We may well see the birth of a new party (unfortunately much more to the right-think tea party crazy) as well as the existing party becoming what we would consider center-right. Could we see the beginnings of a three party system?

[tritsofme]

4. I think it would be more likely that Boehner resigns before the next Congress

Because for all the reasons you point out, he must be embarrassed that he has become irrelevant, and one of the weakest speakers in history.

But I don't think there will be a coup. Their entire leadership had hands on this failure, there is really no one with the stature to mount a credible challenge. Although if it happened, a rump Tea Party speaker for the next two years would be disastrous.

[Recursion]

5. There's no shortage of knives there, Eric's being the deepest

But, yeah, I will be surprised if he's still in Congress when the next one is seated.

[dkf]

6. I always wondered how Boehner could get the votes.

It never seemed he was really in charge.

Well this has been a complete waste of time, Obama bargaining with Boehner.

[Recursion]

7. By shutting out Democratic support, he guaranteed he couldn't

Traditionally speakers would come to their reluctant partymembers and say "This is going to pass with or without you. You're going to vote for it because otherwise I'll move your office to the Anacostia Annex." But because he made himself need everyone (or nearly so) in his party, suddenly he didn't have any of that leverage.

Which gets to the irony that a less conservative Speaker could have passed a much more conservative agenda.

[dkf]

8. It doesn't really matter if he passes a conservative agenda or not, he can't get through the Senate.

This vote is very frustrating for me as I don't see how anything gets passed. I guess it's a good thing I can see some positives in the fiscal cliff. Pain now but a better future.

[Old and In the Way]

9. Boehner's not the right person to lead the Republican caucus.

He's not insane enough.

[freshwest]

10. interesting perspective. Do they want Cantor who has been there longer?

Or a new Tea Party terrorist who will be up there breathing fire at everything, trying to bring the government down with the debt ceiling again?

Grover says he will unleash Tea Party Two on Obama for not giving in. I have a feeling we are in for some out of this world drama when the Congress convenes again.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

11. would love to see A)nothing happening this year and fiscal cliff arriving, B)Boehner voted out

by his party, C)The new guy/gal...let's face it--new guy have to go along with Dem/President/Senate plan on just what tax cut and spending plans gets passed in new Congress.

Hopefully it is that a-hole with the shit eating grin, bad hair, and annoying voice, Kantor.