Yes, Republicans and Democrats should cooperate on House speaker vote
Quin Hillyer
Video Embed
Now that Republicans have a new nominee for speaker of the House, they should stop being so narrow-minded that they reject any form of help from Democrats to get their nominee actually elected on the House floor.
If there are a handful of Republican defectors who won’t vote for nominee Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), but enough Democrats decide to not vote at all, the number required for a majority could drop to the point where Emmer gets elected. Various reports say some Democrats are indeed considering doing this, for the good of the country, to get the House working again.
REPUBLICANS OWE THE NATION A SINGLE VOTE FOR SPEAKER
Not a single Republican should withdraw support from Emmer if a few Democrats do this.
There’s nothing wrong with accepting grudging help from Democrats acting in good faith for patriotic reasons. Democrats may be domestic political adversaries, but they aren’t an “enemy.” Nor are they carriers of communicable diseases. No Republican will get sick or die just on the basis of having voted for a speaker against whom some Democrats didn’t vote.
Now, to be clear: This is not to say that Emmer (or any party nominee) should “negotiate” with Democrats in return for support or at least non-opposition. A minority party in a numerically representative assembly should not be able to dictate terms to the majority party. When House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) makes demands in return for Democratic help in electing a speaker, such as new procedures empowering his party effectively to share in running the House, his demand should be rejected. But that’s a different scenario than the most recent one being floated, the one in which some Democrats merely would withhold their votes altogether, without specific demands in return.
Frankly, that’s what a lot of Democrats should do. As my colleague Tim Carney noted, it was Democrats far more than Republicans who voted to take the unprecedented step to vacate the speakership in the first place. House Democrats unanimously created the current mix. At least some Democrats of good conscience should step forward to fix it — not by voting for Emmer, but by declining to vote against him.
What’s in it for these Democrats? Two things. First, goodwill. Democrats who help break the impasse without asking for anything specific in return will nonetheless earn gratitude and respect from Republicans. On big ideological issues or on how to actually operate the House, that goodwill should not gain them any concessions from Republicans, but there are all sorts of smaller, less ideological ways that goodwill can benefit a congressman and his constituents. Just getting a respectful ear for some local policy concern — legislative language providing a regulatory waiver that could expedite an already approved highway project, or inclusion of a landmark as a national historic location in a way that might boost area tourism — can be worthwhile.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The second and more important “gain” for cooperating Democrats, as it is for reasonable Republicans, will be for the good of the body politic itself. With violent crises abroad and major dissension at home, having the House back at work and having bipartisan semi-respect reestablished are both essential. Some legislation desperately needs doing, and public confidence in the constitutional order desperately needs reinforcement.
If 25 House Republicans refuse to vote for Emmer, then 50 House Democrats shouldn’t vote at all. If their non-votes spur another 10 Republicans to switch against Emmer, then 20 more Democrats should withdraw votes. Whatever it takes, break the impasse. Get the job done. The House must get back to work, rather than being hostage to a small caucus of nihilists.