Many of us watched the spectacle this week of the Republican Party trying to elect a leader. We watched through 15 ballots, when Kevin McCarthy—Trump sycophant—finally was elected. We knew that behind the scenes he was promising to do whatever his far-far-right Chaos Caucus wanted, to give them whatever power they sought. The whole episode was humiliating for McCarthy and a source of amusement for Democrats, who stayed united behind their leader Hakeem Jeffries.
Heather Cox Richardson wrote about the debacle:
Early this morning, shortly after midnight, Republican Kevin McCarthy of California won enough votes to become speaker of the House of Representatives. Not since 1860, when it took 44 ballots to elect New Jersey’s William Pennington as a compromise candidate, has it taken 15 ballots to elect a speaker.
The spectacle of a majority unable to muster the votes to elect a speaker, while the Democratic opposition stayed united behind House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), raised ridicule across the country. McCarthy tried to put a good spin on it but inadvertently undercut confidence in his leadership when he, now the leader of the House, told reporters: “This is the great part…. Because it took this long, now we learned how to govern.”
But there is no doubt that the concessions he made to extremist Republicans to win their votes mean he has finally grasped the speaker’s gavel from a much weaker position than previous speakers. “He will have to live the entirety of his speakership in a straitjacket constructed by the rules that we’re working on now,” one of the extremist ring leaders, Matt Gaetz (R-FL) told reporters. Gaetz later explained away his willingness to accept McCarthy after vowing never to support McCarthy by saying “I ran out of things I could even imagine to ask for.”
In his acceptance speech, McCarthy first thanked the House clerk, Cheryl Johnson, who presided over the drawn-out fight. Johnson was chosen by Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) when she became speaker in 2018, and has served since 2019. Her work this week was impressive.
McCarthy promised that the Republicans recognized that their responsibility was not to themselves or their conference, but to the country, but then went on to lay out a right-wing wish list for investigations, business deregulation, and enhanced use of fossil fuels, along with attacks on immigration, “woke indoctrination” in public schools, and the 87,000 new IRS agents funded by the Inflation Reduction Act to enforce tax laws. Somewhat oddly, considering the Biden administration’s focus on China and successful start to the repatriation of the hugely important chip industry, McCarthy promised that the Republicans would essentially jump on Biden’s coattails, working to counter communist China and bring jobs home. McCarthy promised that Republicans would “be a check and provide some balance to the President’s policies.”
It was a speech that harked back to the past 40 years of Republican ideology, although he awkwardly invoked Emanuel Leutze’s heroic 1851 painting of Washington crossing the Delaware to suggest that America is a land in which “every individual is equal” and “we let everybody in the boat.” Despite the language of inclusion, just as the Republicans have since 1980, he emphasized that the Republicans would center the “hardworking taxpayer.” The Republican conference repeatedly jumped to its feet to applaud his promises, but it felt rather like listening to a cover band playing yesterday’s hits.
Immediately after his victory, McCarthy thanked the members who stayed with him through all the votes, but told reporters: “I do want to especially thank President Trump. I don’t think anybody should doubt his influence. He was with me from the beginning…. He would call me and he would call others…. Thank you, President Trump.”
Aaron Rupar of Public Notice pointed out that “McCarthy going out of his way to gush over Trump at a time when his influence is clearly diminished & political brand is more toxic to mainstream voters than ever—especially on the anniversary of the insurrection—is notable & indicative of who he’ll be beholden to as speaker.”
I would go a step further and say that embracing Trump after his influence on the Republican Party has made it lose the last three elections suggests that, going forward, the party is planning either to convince more Americans to like the extremism of the MAGA Republicans—which is unlikely—or to restrict the vote so that opposition to that extremism doesn’t matter.
Yesterday, Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, signed into law a series of changes in election law that include requiring a photo ID rather than permitting people to use other government documents or utility bills, shortening the time for returning ballots and fixing errors in them (called “curing”), prohibiting curbside voting, and limiting ballot drop boxes to one per county.
Also yesterday, a panel of three federal judges ruled that South Carolina’s First Congressional District is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Following the 2020 census, the Republican-dominated legislature moved 62% of the Black voters previously in that district into the Sixth District, turning what had recently been a swing district into a staunchly Republican one that Republican Nancy Mace won in November by 14 percentage points. District Judge Richard M. Gergel said: “If you see a turtle on top of a fence post, you know someone put it there…. This is not a coincidence.”
In contrast to McCarthy stood Minority Leader Jeffries, who used the ceremonial handing over of the speaker’s gavel from the Democrats to the Republicans to give a barn-burning speech. He began by praising “the iconic, the heroic, the legendary” former House speaker Nancy Pelosi as “the greatest speaker of all time,” and offering thanks to her lieutenants Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Jim Clyburn (D-SC).
He reviewed the laws the Democrats have passed in the past two years—the American Rescue Plan, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, gun safety legislation, the CHIPS & Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, among others. “It was one of the most consequential congresses in American history,” he said, accurately. He called for Democrats to continue the fight for lower costs, better paying jobs, safer communities, democracy, the public interest, economic opportunity for all, and reproductive freedom.
“As Democrats,” he said, “we do believe in a country for everyone…. We believe in a country with liberty and justice for all, equal protection under the law, free and fair elections, and yes, we believe in a country with the peaceful transfer of power.
“We believe that in America our diversity is a strength—it is not a weakness—an economic strength, a competitive strength, a cultural strength…. We are a gorgeous mosaic of people from throughout the world. As John Lewis would sometimes remind us on this floor, we may have come over on different ships but we’re all in the same boat now. We are white. We are Black. We are Latino. We are Asian. We are Native American.
“We are Christian. We are Jewish. We are Muslim. We are Hindu. We are religious. We are secular. We are gay. We are straight. We are young. We are older. We are women. We are men. We are citizens. We are dreamers.
“Out of many, we are one. That’s what makes America a great country, and no matter what kind of haters are trying to divide us, we’re not going to let anyone take that away from us, not now, not ever. This is the United States of America….
“So on this first day, let us commit to the American dream, a dream that promises that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to provide a comfortable living for yourself and for your family, educate your children, purchase a home, and one day retire with grace and dignity.”
In this moment of transition, he said, the American people want to know what direction the Congress will choose. The Democrats offer their hand to Republicans to find common ground, Jeffries said, but “we will never compromise our principles. House Democrats will always put American values over autocracy…
“benevolence over bigotry, the Constitution over the cult, democracy over demagogues, economic opportunity over extremism, freedom over fascism, governing over gaslighting, hopefulness over hatred, inclusion over isolation, justice over judicial overreach, knowledge over kangaroo courts, liberty over limitation, maturity over Mar-a-Lago, normalcy over negativity, opportunity over obstruction, people over politics, quality of life issues over QAnon, reason over racism, substance over slander, triumph over tyranny, understanding over ugliness, voting rights over voter suppression, working families over the well-connected, xenial over xenophobia, ‘yes, we can’ over ‘you can’t do it,’ and zealous representation over zero-sum confrontation. We will always do the right thing by the American people.”
The torch has indeed passed to a new generation, at least of Democrats. Between them and the extremists in his own ranks, McCarthy has his work cut out for him.
Please open the link to read her references.
Not a fan of Jeffries based on his record on education, but this is good:
The reason they’ll never compromise their principles is in order to compromise principles you’ve got to have principles.
And in order to have principles, you have to be able to reason! Didn’t realize what a vicious circle it was until your comment.
I hope all the reading teachers in Jeffries’s district use the heart of his message as an introduction to the alphabet!
-far-right Chaos Caucus” — aka, The Republican Ruckus or Repubruckus, for short
With some people it’s not so much they sold their soul as took out a second mortgage.
From the above post: “Immediately after his victory, McCarthy thanked the members who stayed with him through all the votes, but told reporters: ‘I do want to especially thank President Trump. I don’t think anybody should doubt his influence. He was with me from the beginning…. He would call me and he would call others…. Thank you, President Trump.‘”
There they go again . . . McCarthy must have borrowed Trump’s Magic Sharpie for his recounting his recent history of Trump’s support. Let’s save that comment for his grave marker.
Diane From our previous correspondence here, you were right about Trump supporting McCarthy; but it came AFTER the “wait and see” comments that I quoted here. Trump accepted McCarthy, until he didn’t, until he did, until he didn’t, until he did, until . . . . and vice versa . . . CBK
Two idiots walk into a bar to meet two Corinthians…
Dysfunction Displayed
It won’t matter. Even “mainstream” dysfunctional republicans still vote “party” even though there are cardboard cutouts in the seats.
From now on if it’s “leftist liberals” I’m going with “dysfunctional republicans” or better yet, REGRESSIVE Republicans (St. Louis P-D editorial points out the opposite of “progressive” is not conservative, it’s “regressive!”
However.. (finally, a “however of hope”)
As for Rep. Jeffries…
Finally!
Not the tired (sorry Mr. President) “Unity” which is like listening to the adults in Charlie Brown, Mr. Jeffries sparks with “Unanimity of Purpose for the American people!”
With a divided Congress the Republicans can pass bills, w/o Senate partner bills, obstruct Democratic Senate bills: congressional gridlock – who will blink first? Will a few Republicans buck their ultra right colleagues? Probably not. If we fall into recession it could free fall .. 1929 to 1933
Peter, how can the Republican House pass bills without Senate approval? Nothing will pass unless both houses agree.
Republicans will pass bills in the House, as well as expand $$ on “investigations,” w/o the Senate, no laws, they will hold the Democrats hostage, they are willing to bring law making to a halt … in spite of the repercussions
Peter,
No bills will pass in the next two years unless there is bipartisan cooperation.
The House will pour its energy into investigations of Hunter Biden, Dr. Fauci, the FBI, and anything they can do to slime Biden. They can also cut appropriations and oppose any effort to raise the debt ceiling, which might lead to government shutdowns and defaulting on the debt, which would have international repercussions.
Maybe McCarthy got exactly what he wanted, explaining why he thanked the traitor for become Speaker of the House.
https://www.politico.com/video/2023/01/07/mccarthy-thanks-trump-after-speaker-win-i-dont-think-anybody-should-doubt-his-influence-809972
I think McCarthy is praying to his god, the traitor, that the House Unfreedom Chaos Cult keeps stiring the MAGA RINO pot until it boils over and someone from that mob takes out President Biden and VP Harris so McCarthy becomes president.
Why did McCarthy want that job so bad he did what he did and thanked who he thanked?
Because McCarthy wants to be president and is counting on the traitor and his MAGA RINO supporters to make it happen.
Then, if that coup attempt succeeds, a President McCarthy will pay the traitor back by pardoning him for his crimes, at least at the federal level, but McCarthy might not have time to move into the White House before someone DeSantis or Abbott sends takes McCarthy off the political chess board.
We may be hearing this a lot in the near future:
Et tu, Brute? (pronounced [ɛt ˈtuː ˈbruːtɛ]) is a Latin phrase literally meaning “and you, Brutus?” or “also you, Brutus?”, often translated as “You as well, Brutus?”, “You too, Brutus?”, or “Even you, Brutus?”.
Umm…. I read that this was a blog about ‘better education for all’. This political drift seems a bit off course. Come to think of it, so does ‘shadow banning’ and ostracism. I’d suggest that folks (particularly Diane) read the latest book by https://www.routledge.com/Lets-Agree-to-Disagree-A-Critical-Thinking-Guide-to-Communication-Conflict/Higdon-Huff/p/book/9781032168982
I expect to never be posted (could be proven wrong, but unlikely). You see, I’ve been ‘banned’ upon the false premise that I’m a ‘Russian Troll’. I live in Tennessee and post on many other sites from my Tennessee email address.
Daedalus,
It’s my blog and I write what I want. Public education is closely allied with democracy, so of course I worry about democracy. If that’s “political,” so be it. I make no apologies.
Diane,
You can, of course, write what you want. However, when you decide to stifle the voices of others, that is another issue.
I agree that some speech on a blog needs to be ‘modified’. For example, ‘name calling’. This is particularly true if the ‘name’ being ‘called’ is being made by someone with no evidence of any relationship to the actual truth. I think you know who did the name calling that led to my banishment and should have been ‘censored’ before he convinced you that I was a ‘troll’.
Nothing against trolls, mind you. I’ve never found one under a bridge, but I’d be willing to listen to their side of the story (unless they ate me).
I once took a graduate course on ‘analytic philosophy’. Really opened my mind to the area of Linguistics. I was a ‘science guy’ at the time, and this course helped drive me to become a teacher at the secondary level. It was a ‘calling’, a ‘profession’. I then had some experience teaching ‘undergraduates’ and medical students, and I felt they were too old to learn. And, so, I became ‘certified’ and subsequently probably spent more time in the secondary classroom than most of my detractors. I never, ever, regretted the loss of ‘income’, probably as a result of that same philosophy course as well.
Not that ‘detractors’ shouldn’t have their say, however they should stick to calling out logical mistakes instead of speculating and name calling. To use such rhetorical sleights of hand indicates a deep-down insecurity in the accuser.
‘Psychological projection’ appears to be a useful concept. Perhaps it’s all we can do (given the limits or our brain). However, when someone accuses someone else of a particular discretion, it’s probably a good idea to initially doubt (without evidence), and then suspect the accuser of the same transgression. It’s not always on target, but it’s a good bet.
Anyway, I’m glad to see I’m not automatically banned, however this message is a bit personal. I would have sent it to your personal e-mail, however I didn’t know what it was. You, of course, know mine. And, if you decide to not publish this rather personal exchange, that’s fine with me.
…as Kevin McCarthy follows in the footsteps of other revered leaders like the distinguished Liz Truss…
Off topic, but for anyone who’s interested in academic freedom, an art history professor at Hamline University was just fired because she showed this painting to her class.
Although the teacher believed she was taking all precautions the questi
Welcome to the club
FLERP,
The adjunct professor was not “fired”. She was a first year adjunct hire and her contract for the next semester wasn’t renewed (in the article it says “rescinded” although a contract that can be rescinded isn’t much of a contract).
This is a story of a small private college hurting financially and desperate for students located in a place where there is a good sized Muslim community whose students they would like to attract. When a student complained and others joined her, and this started to get attention, the private college didn’t renew the instructor’s contract, as apparently they had every right to do.
But lucky for the adjunct professor that she had lots of connected and powerful people IN ACADEMIA who started a huge PR campaign to support this non-Muslim’s teacher the right to tell Muslim students that it didn’t matter whether “most Muslims believe that visual representations of Muhammad should not be viewed” (as the NYT article states). Because as long as SOME Muslims — even if it isn’t most — believe it is fine, then all Muslim students must just embrace the “uncomfortable truth” that this painting is absolutely necessary to be taught, because demanding that the majority of Muslims accept those “uncomfortable truths” is much more important than having non-Muslims have to acknowledge the “uncomfortable truth” that just because they were taught that a painting must be taught does not mean that the painting must be taught FOR ETERNITY regardless of whether the majority of Muslims are offended.
I find it very revealing there isn’t even an ounce of empathy of compassion for the Muslim students expressed by the person who posted this — neither FLERP nor teachingeconomist seems inclined to even try to consider their point of view — which happens to be the point of view of the MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS! Nope, all sympathy goes to the non-Muslim adjunct who not only ALREADY had other jobs, but also has a powerful organized “free speech” movement able to get this into the NYT!
I can’t believe neither of you even considered this revealing sentence from the “victimized” instructor: “I do not want to present the art of Islam as something that is monolithic,” she said in an interview, adding that she had been shown the image as a graduate student.”
SHE was shown the image as a graduate student so it’s okay.
“I was required to read Uncle Tom’s Cabin, so it’s okay to require my class with 20 white and 5 black students to read it today.” “I thought that SNL with Billy Crystal in blackface was comedy so it’s okay to include it in a comedy class.” “My kids’ classroom had Dr. Seuss’ “And to think that I saw it on Mulberry Street” with offensive Asian stereotype illustrations, so how dare the parents of the 4 of the 5 Asian students complain, when there is one parent who didn’t mind and none of the white parents did?” Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Mulberry Street are CLASSICS and must be included.
While I am sympathetic to the adjunct professor because she seems to lack imagination, it was telling to me that she did not even try to make an effort to address the fact that the majority of Muslims would find that image offensive. “Trigger warning, I am going to say something to offend you now” does not cut it. That professor didn’t take “precautions” — she offered “trigger warnings” and presented the offensive (to Muslims) depictions as being necessary.
Trigger warnings are for content that is disturbing – like warning someone they are about to see depictions of violence. Using it to excuse doing something that you know will offend someone reminds me of those folks who start their sentence with “no offense, but…” and proceed to go on to say something they know will offend you.
Do you know what the teacher COULD have done? She could have talked ABOUT the depiction, she could have described it and imparted whatever supposedly vital piece of information that she felt was necessary. And she could have explained — in fact she SHOULD have explained — that the majority of Muslims in the world find any depiction of Mohammed in art deeply offensive because they have deeply held religious beliefs that prohibit depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, so she wasn’t going to show the actual painting she was describing because it was NOT necessary and the content could be taught without it. And she could have provided students who WANTED to see the image with an easy link to view the painting outside of class.
Easy issue to solve unless you are so completely unaware of your own privilege that you believe that anything you were taught is by definition of vital importance to be taught regardless of whether it offends many people.
Students have lost NOTHING. And yet some folks here believe that unless professors have the academic freedom to offend the majority of Muslim student, fascism will take hold. Nope. Fascism takes hold when professors are told they can’t talk about that painting at all, and it is banned everywhere.
That’s coming with the Republicans. The folks who are complicit are those who pretend that academia responding with more consideration regarding images offensive to Muslims IN CLASS are the real danger, and that “trigger warnings” are a replacement for common courtesy that too many privileged folks believes is unnecessary because they are the only arbiters of what is allowed.
Uncle Tom’s Cabin? Billy Crystal doing Sammy Davis Jr.? Some people still think those are okay.
NYCPSP,
I don’t agree on several fronts. For an adjunct, not having her contract renewed is the same as being fired.
Showing the class a beautiful and historic portrayal of Mohammed in an art class is not offensive or disrespectful.
We do not abide by Sharia law.
Totally agree, Flerp. Sad you will never know (censorship, of course)
Sad to see you defend this.
I agree that the college may be hurting financially and desparate for Muslim students. I was an adjunct at one time and a student in my class, who did not purchase the book I was using for my class, put my job at risk.
You have very high expectations for the adjunct. You refer to the power of the adjunct, You also refer to feeling bad for the adjunct with the sub par imagination.
You express yourself in a detailed and excellent fashion. Good for you.
I find the students behavior to be problematic. I find the college following thru on this due to thier financial desparation to be very lame.
If you are correct about the the lack of consideration by academics ie privileged folks being the real danger, that would be concerning for sure.
I dont know who you are but you do sound well educated to my ear. Adjuncts are quite often not privileged folks and sometimes leaders from college activities are privileged folks. In conclusion, I feel it is too much to ask to censure what the teacher wants to teach in order to not offend the religious person who does not want to see it.
I see this as censureship not lack of consideration. You snub the adjunct who may be poor and defend the student president who may be wealthy. You might be ignoring the economic aspect to all of this.
Remember Andrea Dworkin and Cathleen Mac Kinnnon and their fight to censure pornography.
It would be a good conversation for the classroom to discuss all of these different opinions. That might be healing. The student was given too much inappropriate power. I guess the teacher could have made her warnings louder, more flassy, whatever. But the student was irresponsible for not responding to the initial warnings. I must land on the side of keeping religion out of the mix. I dont know if the Muslim student was very religious or typical religious or mildly religious or what ever. But the non contract renewal or firing of the teacher was wrong in my opinion and I would like to give that student a piece of my mind.
Context for my comment above.
FLERP!,
Thanks for bringing this up, but it will be ignored. An inconvenient truth.
Just because people don’t respond to everything that you and the FLERPster post?
You poor dears. Are your wireless feelings hurt?
Maybe you missed Diane’s post just yesterday,(although I doubt it, given your bad cherry picking habit, exemplified by your quoting Emily Oster on school safety) which pretty much covers all the bases on the dangers of “religious fundamentalism”
https://dianeravitch.net/2023/01/07/paul-bonner-religious-fanaticism-is-a-menace/
Maybe (just maybe) people choose not to respond to you because so many of your comments — like the one above “but it will be ignored.An inconvenientvtruth” — are fish bait.
But, like an idiot, I took the bait (this time)
Ha ha ha.
For all of my sentient life I have viewed a pale and bloodied Jesus on a cross. Who is the authority that can make the case that the figure portrayed is “the” Mohammad ? Can a soul be captured in a photograph?
I was enthralled by the argument that the professor should have used a thousand words instead of showing the picture.
Seems to me that we should look somewhere else for the important stuff. How often over the past forty years have we paid attention to some diversion only to realize that some more important issue has been ignored. Did the Supreme Court just rule that yachts have the right of free speech? Maybe we missed the passing of a law that let dogs owned by Republicans vote in school board races.
Good point, Roy.
Following the screams of our captive ‘main stream media’ is a sure way to be distracted from something more important to the lives of most citizens. We can’t seem to tell the difference between a ‘soap opera’ and the reality that surrounds us. As a result, we are becoming ‘excellent sheep’.
Officer Harry Dunn summed it up today as succinctly as we’ll ever hear or see. Starting at 6:50:
The Republican Jewish Coalition may be interested in Rep. Santos’ picks for staff e.g. a person who formerly worked for Rep. Tim Huelsman (R-Kansas). Huelsman is currently a senior advisor to the right wing Catholic Vote. Secondly, a former aide to Steve Bannon has been identified as a working in the Santos office. (Raw Story)
When Santos was questioned about Newsday’s report that Carl Paladino had been hired (reportedly, Paladino infamously praised Hitler), Santos said Paladino had not been hired.
Carl Paladino would not be staff for Santos or anyone else. He is a multimillionaire provocateur.
Various media report the Bannon strategist hired by Santos has ties to Paladino. It should surprise no one.
Seems likely. Paladino is a far-out racist.
Cartoonist Lalo Alcaraz on McCarthy’s speakership:
Cartoonist Lalo Alcaraz on McCarthy’s speakership: