Paul Ryan has said he won’t seek the speakership unless he is endorsed by all the Republican conferences, and the big question, of course, is whether the Freedom Caucus would now back him over Daniel Webster, whom they’ve already endorsed.
Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, who heads the caucus, says the group would “look favorably” on Ryan, but it’s hard to imagine he can get their support. According to the rules, Ryan would need the support of 80 percent of the members who are present — meaning that just eight votes could blackball him. When you consider the outside pressure that talk radio hosts will be putting on these members, it seems unlikely that Paul can meet that threshold.
So then what? It’s unclear what happens next. But I can’t help thinking that we are witnessing an important moment — a crossroads for the GOP (will the party be more like Jack Kemp or Donald Trump) — but also (and forgive me if this sounds melodramatic or philosophical), a moment where America’s cultural anomie has finally caught up with our politics.
The shared consensus that (mostly) defined American life in the post-World War II era is coming apart. President Obama, who was elected at least partly as a response to the 2008 economic crisis, chose to expedite this crack-up by pushing his divisive liberal agenda (rather than being a “uniter”).
What’s happening on the Right today can be understood as both a symptom of the same trend — and as a backlash to the heavy-handed politics of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi. Conservatives want their own president who will issue executive orders — and vanquish their enemies.
Enter Paul Ryan, who is more interested in pushing conservative public policy reform, salvaging the current makeup of the Republican Party (to keep the disparate wings of the GOP unified), and preserving the institution of the speakership (against attempts to weaken its authority). Some may think his rhetoric overly dramatic, but Ryan seems to agree this is a perilous moment: “My greatest worry is the consequence of not stepping up — of someday having my own kids ask me ‘when the stakes were so high, why didn’t you do all you could do?'” he said.
Now, I don’t want to suggest that the fate of western civilization rests on whether or not Paul Ryan gets this position. It doesn’t. But I do think what we are seeing is a microcosm of a larger trend, whereby few leaders are willing to do what’s right — precisely because we punish them for doing it. The incentives are perverse. By choosing to define the parameters of this gig, Ryan is hoping to minimize the downside of taking this risk.
Ultimately, Ryan is offering to provide adult leadership — something that is desperately needed today. House conservatives can back him, and preserve what some derisively call the “status quo” (and others call normalcy) — or they can instead make yet another move toward uprooting what’s left of the remaining institutions of authority.
What will they choose? Chaos has always been more fun.
