This is truly great stuff from National Review's Noah Rothman:
On Tuesday night, the House Administration Committee delivered the news to former speaker Nancy Pelosi that she would have to vacate her “hideaway” office in the Capitol, a small chamber conveniently located closer to where the legislative action takes place. On Wednesday morning, onetime Democratic majority leader Steny Hoyer was ordered out of a similar hideaway he had occupied. Punchbowl News reporter Jake Sherman described the moves as an act of “revenge” against Democrats for voting unanimously with eight insurgent Republicans to remove McCarthy from the speakership. “Expect more of this, GOP sources tell us,” he warned.
More petty revenge. Roger that! But the best part is that Rothman defends petty revenge as a sound governing principle:
Democrats voted in lockstep with a faction of the conference that a majority of the majority desperately wants to punish. That’s a fraught prospect given the largely assumed influence the Right’s insurrectionary elements allegedly command among rank-and-file GOP voters, but meting out revenge against the Democrats who aided them isn’t nearly as difficult. This is what Democrats voted for.
NR went all in on the "Biden crime family" stuff a while ago, so perhaps this new look isn't a surprise. They are now fully committed to the Biden conspiracy theory and the lab-leak conspiracy theory, and they've always been committed to Benghazi and Tea Party targeting theories. I think they managed to avoid the "Obama was born in Kenya" conspiracy theory, but that's about it. They're pretty far down the rabbit hole these days, which is kind of sad for a publication that, notwithstanding my personal differences, has had a pretty distinguished history.
Anyway, back to office politics. Rothman and others need to be clear on the precedent here. Minority parties always vote unanimously against the majority party's candidate for Speaker. There are no exceptions. If Democrats had done otherwise, it would have been unprecedented.
So was unprecedented action called for? Let's roll the tape:
- Kevin McCarthy was one of the first Republicans to make a U-turn on the January 6th insurrection and deny that anything wrong happened.
- McCarthy negotiated a spending level of $1.59 trillion for discretionary programs during the debt ceiling standoff. Within days he reneged on that and demanded a much lower spending level.
- He did the same dozens of times, agreeing on some legislation or other and then immediately reneging under pressure from the MAGA wing of his party.
- He made a handshake deal with President Biden to provide more funding for Ukraine. Practically before he made it back to the Capitol he had reneged on that.
- He promised he wouldn't open an impeachment inquiry without a full vote of the House, and then did it anyway on his own.
- He took a bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act that passed 58-1 in the House Armed Services Committee and larded it up with right-wing poison pills that then passed only on a pure partisan vote and never had any chance of passing the Senate.
- At the end, McCarthy offered nothing to Democrats as a token of good faith and even said he didn't expect any of their votes.
McCarthy betrayed Democrats over and over and over. It's hard to see that they owed McCarthy anything, let alone that the circumstances were so unique that Democrats should have broken 200 years of tradition to interfere in the caucus matters of another party.
As a thought experiment, consider the opposite. Suppose 200 Republicans wanted to oust McCarthy and 21 wanted to keep him. But every Democrat voted for McCarthy, keeping him as speaker even though virtually his entire party didn't want him. Would that have been the right thing to do? Or should they simply let Republicans handle their internal issues?
The answer is obvious. And petty revenge is still petty revenge. It's stupid and spiteful and demonstrates a lack of either honor or integrity.