The Republican Moment of Truth is Approaching

How the upcoming government shutdown deadline will uniquely define the party

Reps Andy Biggs, Speaker Mike Johnson, & Rep Debbie Lesko | Andy Biggs X/Twitter account photo

Before, it was pretty clear cut. With a “moderate” House Speaker in the form of Kevin McCarthy, it made sense. He went through so many iterations of Speaker elections, that it was obviously going to happen. He debased himself in the process so much that there was only one possibility. He was going to eventually clash with the MAGA arsonist wing of the party, and likely be kicked out as Speaker.

The reason we knew this is because McCarthy was actually somewhat of a dealmaker. He was very two-faced about it, and rubbed people the wrong way with how he would deal with them to their faces but then turn around and denigrate them behind their backs. But he was a pragmatist and knew that if the MAGA arsonists were to take over the House delegation, they highly risked their majority and individual election chances. This is because it’s obvious most of the country is turned off by the extreme arsonists’ political demeanor.

So, he had to make deals to avoid arsonist approaches to governing, such as government shutdowns and cutting off allies in their existential battle with enemy aggressors. This pragmatic deal-making got him booted out by the arsonists, with the help of the Democrats who were likewise alienated by McCarthy’s Machiavellian approach to politics. He was bipartisan without any of the fanfare or goodwill; it was all transactional and the other party was usually thrown under the bus as the cause of all ills as soon as he walked out of the negotiating room.

The new Speaker, Mike Johnson, is on the surface very different from McCarthy.  He’s MAGA, but without the ugly “MAGA-ish-ness”. He holds just about every extreme right wing view you can think of, and he’s up front about it. But he’s polite and good-mannered. He’s not two-faced….at least as far as we yet know. Thus far he has been able to afford to not be two-faced. But his new position of leadership is going to test that greatly.

It seems like Johnson is almost the ideal MAGA arsonist Speaker. But the looming government shutdown deadline is going to make it very clear where he stands and how the House Republicans will be defined going forward.

The dilemma for Johnson now is the exact same one the McCarthy had: Either be unbending in your demands for an ultra-conservative cost-cutting budget and risk a government shutdown to placate the extremists, or negotiate a spending bill or continuing resolution with Democrats and more moderate Republicans to allow the government to stay open and placate the moderates and increase the chances of holding the House majority in the 2024 election.

If he negotiates and compromises and passes something that keeps the government open, he will be vilified and possibly kicked out by the same MAGA arsonists that kicked McCarthy out. But if he forces a shutdown, Republicans will be seen as too extremist and they will cost themselves whatever slim chances they had of keeping the House majority. In addition, all Republicans running for Congress, House or Senate, can be tied to this extremism. It doesn’t help that Johnson is a known far-right religious zealot; this already puts them at risk no matter what he does.

The upcoming deadline will be interesting, because it’s hard to say exactly what will happen. I predict that the moderate approach will win, because there are just too many political realities that will force his hand. In fact, he’s already signaled that he wants to avoid a government shutdown and at least pass an acceptable continuing resolution. 

Even if Johnson and the MAGA arsonist crowd don’t want to compromise, there are enough Republicans in toss-up districts that see the writing on the wall and will work with Democrats to not allow a government shutdown. They are the ones most panicking about being reelected.

But even beyond the upcoming election, the choice that Republicans make now could potentially define them for the longer term. Are they still dysfunctional extremists hellbent on dismantling the administrative state immediately and forcefully rather than through methodical persuasion and policy-making? Or are they a viable political party capable of compromise and offering real-world solutions to our most pressing problems? We will find out this week.