Congressional Chaos: Will Republican Discord Lead to Productive Governance or Fuel Dangerous Division?
In January 2023, the US House of Representatives attempted to elect a new speaker of the house. The Speaker is important, as the House cannot function without one by law - meaning legislation cannot pass, and budgets unset, leading to a halt on normal governing functions. Historically, the majority party simply elects their party leader to preside over the House. However, this time around, the Republicans have found it difficult to elect Kevin McCarthy as a 20-member faction, ideologically opposed to the majority of the Party, prohibited the election of a Speaker for five days, until their demands on policy, committee seats and rules for the House of Representatives were met.
The lack of a House Speaker for any period is quite unusual. It has only happened twice since the civil war. Most importantly, Congress can only govern with a Speaker. As the rules stand, the House of Representatives cannot pass laws, or respond to emergencies, lawmakers cannot view classified or sensitive materials, or any other government action it needs to in order to oversee other Federal agencies and branches of government until a speaker is elected. The legislative branch is therefore paralysed during that time.
Aside from the difficulty to elect a new Speaker, the event points to further legislative chaos emanating not just from a divided Congress, but a divided Republican Party. What the Speakership election has shown is that a small group of Republicans, known as the Freedom Caucus and ideologically opposed to many in their own party, are willing to stall governing in order to force through their agenda.
Further Congressional Chaos
The rebellion against Kevin McCarthy’s speakership bid was rooted primarily in an ideological drive of the most conservative Republicans to drastically limit the size, scope, and reach of the Federal Government, taking up the banner of the Tea Party.
Many dissidents are focused on balancing the federal budget, coming to blows with senior Republicans and potentially setting up a showdown over the US debt ceiling. The Freedom caucus seeks radical changes such as slashing the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) budget and replacing federal income taxes with ones on consumption. The faction further demands seats on top committees, the cessation of Republican funding primary challengers against Freedom Caucus members, and even limiting US aid to Ukraine.
In order to achieve all of this, the Freedom Caucus has used their small numbers, and the Party’s overall slim majority, to hold the speakership hostage if concessions were not made. For instance, the threshold to call a vote of no confidence in a sitting Speaker has been lowered, meaning that if McCarthy tries to keep the Freedom Caucus at bay, they could now more easily trigger a vote of no confidence and remove him. The Freedom Caucus members have also demanded changes in the reading of bills - they can no longer be rushed to a vote, but a 72 hours notice must be given to give members of the House time to read the legislation.
The Freedom Caucus’ demands place the country in an unstable position. As demonstrated, the group does not hesitate to hold up the legislative process if their demands are not met. As a result, the changes to Congress could potentially slow down the legislative process, hampering any ability to respond quickly to crises. The actions of the Republican faction threatens to make an already divided government, as the House of Representatives and the Senate are controlled by competing parties, even more divisive and unresponsive to the country’s issues.
What it means for Congress
With the breakdown of Republican Party discipline, some are worried about what it will mean for Congress's ability to govern over the next two years. “This concerns me that we might end up in some deals that might not pass and then possible shutdowns,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from Texas and a member of the House Appropriations Committee. Cuellar’s statement illustrates how Democrats and some Republicans are worried that the conflict over the speakership is a sign of the majority’s inability to govern and ultimately its instability.
McCarthy’s difficulty to be elected shows how fragile the Republican Party and by extension the US government are. Working with a Democratic-controlled Senate and Presidency was always going to pose a challenge for House Republicans. But the power of the Freedom Caucus means they can hold up key policy decisions and hinder important government functions - passing budgets, raising the debt ceiling, and scrutinising the work of governing branches and departments - in addition to preventing compromise with Democrats.
A divided Republican Party will only enhance the division present in American Government. Following the midterm election in the Autumn of 2022, Congress found itself divided, with Democrats holding the Senate and the House held by the Republicans. The division means that making laws, overseeing the other governing branches and enacting spending bills will be increasingly difficult. In the void left by government inaction, partisan divisions are likely to be heightened, as each side blames the other for the inability to get anything done. Tensions are likely to heat up around critical debates, such as the one around whether or not to raise the debt ceiling.
One of the key issues facing Congress, and maybe the most important decision it will make in the next 12 months, is whether or not to raise the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is the maximum amount of debt the Federal Government can accrue. Once the ceiling is hit, the government is no longer allowed to issue any more debt. In the short term, extraordinary measures may be taken to meet financial commitments, but if negotiations to raise the ceiling stall, the long-term result may be a default on government debt.
If the US Federal Government defaults or comes close to a default, the result could be economic chaos. Default would mean interest rates rise, investors stop or scale back investments in Treasury securities, and interest rates would rise on car loans, credit cards and mortgages. Even the threat of hitting the ceiling could raise borrowing costs, as The Government Accountability Office (GAO) suggests. The result of a debt limit impasse was estimated by Moody’s Analytics in 2021. The US economy could see a 4% decline in GDP, the loss of 6 million jobs, with unemployment rising to 9% and a $15 trillion loss in household wealth. Ultimately, the result would be a recession on par or worse than the Great Recession in 2008.
If Congressional inactivity leads to economic chaos the results can lead to increases in people turning to extremist movements and ultimately violence to rectify the stressful living situations they find themselves in. As we have seen in the decade after the Great Recession, or the post-Great Depression, extremist parties and factions gained adherents as they claimed they were the only solutions to the issues plaguing their societies. But, with today’s Congress, economic downturns are not the only driver pushing people towards extremism and violence.
Risks of violence
Intra-Party conflict, and Congressional deadlock, leading to economic recession can increase the chances of violence as people turn to extremist groups as outlets. But economic conditions are not the only source of people’s frustration and cause of their turn towards extremism and violence. In the current climate, unresponsive governing institutions, including the established political parties, are used as points in party rhetoric to stoke polarisation and existential fears.
The Senate and House are controlled by opposing parties who refuse to work together, and the Republican Party in the House of Representatives is internally divided. All of the division leads to a legislative branch that is unable to enact legislation that may positively shape people’s lives and respond to crises. Historically, government inaction on key issues has led to a response by citizens who believe they have no other choice: The French Revolution is a famous example, as is the Arab Spring.
Historically, The US has experienced periods where divided governments have led to inaction over policy issues and resulted in violence. The most prominent example is the division over slavery in the run-up to the Civil war, in which neither side could compromise on the issue, making violent conflict inevitable. During the Gilded Age (1877-1896) Congress found itself split between Democrats and Republicans for 13 years. Division in Congress also came at a time when a bargain was struck to end reconstruction in the southern states, allowing those states to roll back rights for former slaves without any resulting Federal Government reaction. Without a federal presence, violence reigned as whites attempted to take the rights of former slaves away from them. However, continued division in Congress meant a concerted effort to protect Black Americans and their rights were impossible and led to Jim Crow laws being adopted across the South. A divided Congress was also at the centre of attention in 1932, when they were slow to provide bonuses to WWI veterans during the Depression. As a result, the veterans and their families protested in Washington, with the government calling in the military to deal with the unrest. The violence resulted in the deaths of several protesters, including two infants, and injured hundreds of others.
When the government becomes unable to respond to issues impacting people’s everyday lives, party rhetoric aims to blame the other side, framing them as a threat to their perceived way of life. For example, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke about a “national divorce” between red and blue states, stemming from a belief that Democratic politics pose a threat to Republicans. The result is that people cluster into ideological groups, fueled by their side’s messages demonising their political opponents. The result is a deeply polarised political landscape.
Polarisation is further amplified by a sense that if the other side wins the next election, “our way of life will be threatened”. If people buy into the thought that they are threatened, they may lash out in a violent way. The most well-known example of political polarisation leading to violence is the January 6 insurrection. On January 6, followers of Donald Trump perceived the victories of Joe Biden and the Democrats in the House and Senate as an existential threat. Supporters believed that the election had been stolen from them by establishment political figures that had conspired to get rid of Donald Trump. Some of his supporters saw Trump as a saviour that would protect America from immoral people at the top of society. The result was a group of Trump’s supporters attempting to overturn the election with violence.
The political landscape in the United States is at its most divisive since the civil war. Neither side of the aisle has worked with the other in many constructive ways on domestic policy. However, there is hope that a partnership is being foraged in foreign policy that may lead the parties to work together elsewhere. Yet, polarisation in a deadlocked Congress may be exacerbated by a divided Republican Party, held captive by a small internal faction, which is unable to legislate or respond to a crisis. These tensions are building upon one another and could lead to violence if one side loses to the other and members of the losing faction fear what it will mean for their way of life.
With recent history showing that some groups are willing to commit themselves to violence for the political cause, the situation over the next two years may prove to be exceptionally difficult. Multiple societal stresses and a more relaxed view of political violence mean that conflict is likely to erupt unless the issue is taken seriously and effectively mitigated by the governing authorities.