Doesn’t the ability of a single member to call for what is in essence a vote of no confidence give outsized power to the radical minority represented by the 20 hold outs?
What about the lockstep insanity of the Hastert rule? This gives a minority of the House outsized power.
It has been observed multiple times that the House is not meant to be run as a parliamentary system. Yet, that is what Republicans have been doing since Gingrich. This gives an ideological minority the ability to gridlock the House. And, McConnell’s abuse of the filibuster has done the same in the Senate.
I think your analysis misses the ideological lockstep that we are experiencing today.
The Founders of envisioned a government of practical men, not a partisan food fight.
This is an analysis that tries to look beyond ideological blinders (rare these days), not at at WHO made a proposal but WHAT the proposal itself means and would do. Far too many (I'm guilty on occasion) make judgements based on WHO (House Freedom Caucus in this case) not on WHAT. Hey, who cares what the proposal is? - If it's from the Freedom Caucus most folks immediately know whether they're for it or against it.
Of course the pros and cons of each Freedom Caucus issue that Hill mentions can be legitimately argued, as Ken Taylor in another comment here does to some extent. I'm not knowledgeable enough to weigh in strongly on Hill's points, although Hill seems to be making reasonable arguments. But again, I find Hill's analysis refreshing because he looks beyond who made this or that proposal and focuses on the proposal itself - Is it on balance better or worse than the status quo? Would be nice if that approach were more common in political discourse these days. I'm old enough to recall when it was.
Doesn’t the ability of a single member to call for what is in essence a vote of no confidence give outsized power to the radical minority represented by the 20 hold outs?
What about the lockstep insanity of the Hastert rule? This gives a minority of the House outsized power.
It has been observed multiple times that the House is not meant to be run as a parliamentary system. Yet, that is what Republicans have been doing since Gingrich. This gives an ideological minority the ability to gridlock the House. And, McConnell’s abuse of the filibuster has done the same in the Senate.
I think your analysis misses the ideological lockstep that we are experiencing today.
The Founders of envisioned a government of practical men, not a partisan food fight.
This is an analysis that tries to look beyond ideological blinders (rare these days), not at at WHO made a proposal but WHAT the proposal itself means and would do. Far too many (I'm guilty on occasion) make judgements based on WHO (House Freedom Caucus in this case) not on WHAT. Hey, who cares what the proposal is? - If it's from the Freedom Caucus most folks immediately know whether they're for it or against it.
Of course the pros and cons of each Freedom Caucus issue that Hill mentions can be legitimately argued, as Ken Taylor in another comment here does to some extent. I'm not knowledgeable enough to weigh in strongly on Hill's points, although Hill seems to be making reasonable arguments. But again, I find Hill's analysis refreshing because he looks beyond who made this or that proposal and focuses on the proposal itself - Is it on balance better or worse than the status quo? Would be nice if that approach were more common in political discourse these days. I'm old enough to recall when it was.
?).