The current once-in-a-century multi-vote (and still counting as of this writing) election of a new Speaker of the House is a case study in a time-honored method of a small minority dictating the outcome of collective effort. If the margin of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives was larger, twenty-odd Congresspeople would not be able to wield such power.
Going back to the time of Machiavelli, and no doubt earlier than that, minority control has been often used to advance the interests of a few people, or even one, at the expense of an otherwise unified majority.
Here’s how it works:
If there is a condition where two factions are in opposition about some decision or direction, and they are fairly equal in number, an enterprising self-interested person could align themselves with one side or the other, if by doing so the balance of consensus would fall to that side. Then, whenever there was a need for unanimity, the opportunistic player could receive “compensation” in some fashion in exchange for their continuing allegiance to their “side”.
When I was watching C-Span today, as the cameras panned around the floor of the House, I noticed the non-verbal behavior of nearly every clot of politicians the lens found. People were trying to be seen as relevant, posing beside those who held party influence. They wanted to be engaged in side discussions, to feel like they were part of the negotiations that were going on. They wanted to look important, relaxed, confident and involved.
The people who really were central to resolving the roadblock were largely sitting or standing by themselves, as others came up to them occasionally to chat. Kevin McCarthy mostly sat in his chair. The Republicans who were applying the power of the holdout were being approached; they weren’t approaching others.
In a great book of historical and practical wisdom about how humans exert control over each other, called The 48 Laws of Power, (Robert Greene, 2000, Penguin Books), the tools and methods of power politics are laid bare for all to see. Greene presents the information without moral judgment. His reasoning was to educate about reality, not advocate for any particular ethical perspective.
One of the 48 laws is “Make people come to you”. If you have something someone wants, or even if they only think you have it, you can ensure that you will be a person others will pursue for consent, assistance, approval and/or advocacy. If you cultivate the aura of being able to directly affect whether others achieve their goals, you can use that to leverage reciprocation to your benefit.
Again, it is not necessary to actually be able to influence the outcome. You just have to be perceived to have that influence. Of course, if you actually do wield such influence, such as in the case of the election of a new Speaker, your position of power is much greater.
It is a revealing drama that is playing out right now. If a politician truly was acting on behalf of the entire country and all its citizens, the Representatives of the House would be reaching across the political aisle for moderate allies to settle the election of the Speaker so that governance could resume. If enough Democrats voted for McCarthy, the question would be settled, the powerful Republican minority that is holding things up would lose their ability to negotiate extreme conditions in exchange for their support, and a coalition of practicality would prevent that from happening later.
But the Democrats are happy to see the disarray, rebellion and lack of effective governing that is being displayed by the Republican conference in the House. They see the fragmentation as a boon to their prospects to wield minority influence themselves, as the Congress eventually gets down to its business.
The Republicans can’t back off from McCarthy, but if they could, perhaps another Speaker candidate who would be supported by more Representatives could be found. Or the holdout Republicans could throw their vote to the Democratic nominee and we’d have a Republican majority with a Democrat as the Speaker. That would ensure gridlock until the next election, for sure. No way that happens, of course. The holdouts are staking their entire political life on the extremity of their views, grandstanding, gaining notoriety, exacting long-lasting tolls and ensuring that they will remain in control of any future consensus that may be required.
In a way, I’m encouraged as a citizen, that Congress may not be able to do too much of a controversial nature over the next two years, in terms of policy changes and additions. I’d just as soon have a bit less legislative action for a couple of years, from either side of the aisle. The problem with politicians is that, like the person who only owns a hammer, they see every problem as requiring a law to solve. Often, the societal issues can and should be solved outside of the scope of our legislators.
In the meantime, the master class in minority control plays on.