The squeaky wheel got the grease. Kevin McCarthy’s ascension to Speaker of the House involved making concessions to a small but loud group that will, in the words of Rep. Matt Gaetz, put McCarthy in a “straitjacket.”
McCarthy’s speakership may be a personal Pyrrhic victory, but the larger problem—for those of us hoping to fight back against the radicals on the right—is that McCarthy’s compromises will hurt mainstream conservatives, while emboldening the radical Republicans and even swelling their ranks.
Perhaps the most concerning act of appeasement was the deal in which the McCarthy-linked super PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), agreed they “will not spend in any open-seat primaries in safe Republican districts” and “will not grant resources to other super PACs to do so.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Assuming McCarthy honors the spirit and the letter of this deal (we’ll see), this agreement means we can expect more Matt Gaetzes and Lauren Boeberts.
This wouldn’t have happened if McCarthy’s enemies had simply accepted his ascension to the speakership as a fait accompli.
Instead of picking a speaker, they picked a fight. And in so doing, they were able to win concessions that will make the contingent of mainstream “moderate” Republicans both weaker and smaller, while growing sway and swelling their own ranks.
I can spot this tactic because 25 years ago I read a little book called Confrontational Politics. It was written by California state Senator H.L. “Bill” Richardson, who also founded Gun Owners of California and Gun Owners of America.
Richardson’s main insight was that traditional Americans fear conflict and crave harmony, and, as a result, are willing to appease agitators.
Richardson’s book was aimed at helping conservatives fight off the radical left, but it also explains how today’s radical right just outmaneuvered the sane Republican caucus.
Consider the “tactical retreat” that Richardson teaches in his book. He describes it thus: After picking an unprovoked fight, a radical “accepts ‘compromise,’ having gained some ground, not all that they ultimately wanted, but more than they had before the confrontation began.” Then, “Once the ‘compromise’ takes place, the status quo side happily retires from the fight, slightly disgruntled over the loss of territory but relieved the conflict is over.”
The result? “The camel’s nose is under the tent,” Richardson continues. “The Left (remember, he’s teaching conservatives a technique that the left mastered), with more recruits in their ranks and a foothold gained, patiently await the opportune time to start anew with more demands for territory… Lenin stated it best, ‘We advance through retreat.’”
If you’re old enough to remember that Steve Bannon called himself a “Leninist,” you can probably appreciate that this is no coincidence.
And here’s the thing about confrontational politics: It. Never. Ends. Fights are inherently good, because every fight results in you gaining turf. As such, you must always be picking fights.
Now, think about the implications for upcoming battles in American politics, including the debt limit. There is every incentive for the radicals to create a confrontation, push things to the limit, and accept some sort of payoff to end it—all the while gaining concessions, building momentum, and gaining recruits.
And every two years—thanks to CLF’s agreement not to meddle in primaries—the radicals can expect reinforcements. This is true even if Democrats win more seats, since the most likely Republicans to lose are moderates representing swing districts.
Think this concession isn’t a big deal? As Will Saletan notes at The Bulwark, “CLF spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars in the 2022 elections.” He continues, “McCarthy and his allies used dark money to knock off Republican candidates who might have lost winnable seats to Democrats or—if those Republican candidates had made it to Congress—might have threatened McCarthy’s shot at the speakership.”
By picking a losing fight, a “small cadre of dedicated zealots” (as Richardson described Lenin’s followers) were able to exercise outsized power and strike a deal that almost guarantees they will become stronger.
But this raises a question: Why couldn’t a small contingent of reasonable, mainstream conservatives also exercise power the same way?
The answer, of course, is that they could have. So why is it only the radicals who are willing to play hardball and garner victories?
The most pithy answer to this question seems to come from that now-tired W.B. Yeats line, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst /Are full of passionate intensity.”
Things won’t get better until sane, patriotic conservatives who care about preserving liberal democracy are just as willing to take a passionate stand and fight for things they believe in. For example, if McCarthy’s PAC refuses to support sane Republicans and oppose would-be House radicals, other elected Republicans should pick up the slack. If the only people willing to fight for their beliefs are the radicals, then the radicals will always win.
