Washington Wednesday: Republicans control the House

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s the 4th of January, 2023. Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s time for Washington Wednesday.

Well, the 118th Congress is officially in session. Republicans now enjoy a slim majority in the House after the November election.

But Democrats still control the Senate and, of course, the White House.

So what can be accomplished with divided government and what should we expect?

Joining us now to help answer that is Mark Caleb Smith. He’s a political science professor at Cedarville University in Ohio.

REICHARD: Professor, good morning and happy new year.

MARK CALEB SMITH, GUEST: Happy New Year to you. It’s always good to be with you.

REICHARD: Well, let’s start with the question I mentioned a moment ago. Without the presidency or full control of Congress, what kinds of things can the new House majority accomplish over the next two years?

SMITH: I mean, if by accomplish, we're talking about policy and significant policy goals, really probably very little will be accomplished, which I think for them means they're probably going to focus more on politics and 2024 and positioning the party to be competitive in 2024, probably more than anything else. And so it doesn't mean they can't do anything, doesn't mean nothing important can happen. But it just radically changes the agenda when we have divided government like this.

REICHARD: How does House leadership determine who will sit on particular committees, who will lead those committees, etc.? Explain that process if you would.

SMITH: Yeah, this is a hot button issue right now because there's lots of discussion of stripping people of committee assignments and doing other things. So typically, the way that committees function for the Republicans and the Democrats is each party has a committee—a steering committee is what they usually call it—that distributes committee assignments for their party members. So you can think of this even as a committee on committees if we want to be funny about it. But these committees make decisions about who will sit on what other committees there are in the House. And there are some rules, they kind of go by, or more norms, I guess, is probably the better way to put it, sort of typical way they do things. Usually, if you're on a committee and you want to stay on it, you can if you're reelected, and you can stay on that committee for the next Congress. They take into account seniority, they take into account how close your elections have been lately, but probably one of the most vital elements they consider is how loyal have you been to the leadership? Because these committees, the steering committees are packed full of loyalists to the party leaders. And this is just one way that the Speaker of the House or the House Minority Leader can exercise influence over the members of their caucus.

REICHARD: Republicans will have a majority in the House, but again, a very slim one. And there are multiple factions as you refer to within the House GOP. How tall of a task will it be for leadership to try and get House Republicans on the same page on so many issues?

SMITH: Yeah. I mean, I can understand why someone would want to be Speaker of the House. I mean, it's a historic position. It's a Constitutional position. It's in line for the presidency. Lots of benefits, go with it—prestige, some power. But just purely in terms right now of leading a group of politicians and trying to accomplish things in terms of policy outcomes, being Speaker of the House, if you're Republican, is it incredibly difficult and complicated and maybe even impossible job. This isn't even a discussion of a particular person who wants to be Speaker. This is just more of over the last couple of decades, this has been a very difficult group to lead. And I think really, this goes back to the Tea Party movement, where you saw very strong factions developed within the House Republicans, and those factions are still there. So we have the House Freedom Caucus members, we have more traditional mainline establishment Republicans, and those groups just simply don't mix very well right now. And I think Donald Trump's presence over the last seven years or so has just complicated this. And so just leading the group of Republicans, difficult. Now, the Democrats have their own issues. They have a strong divide between progressive Democrats and other Democrats in the Democratic caucus right now. But it seems like those progressive Democrats are a little bit more willing to get on board and be unified with their party leadership compared to perhaps the House Freedom Caucus members for the Republicans.

REICHARD: Okay, let’s talk money now. $1.7 trillion spending bill last week. Eighteen GOP senators voted for it. Some House Republicans supported it too. But most Republicans called it a bloated monstrosity with too much pork and wasteful spending.

Will the new House majority have the ability and the will to rein in that spending?

SMITH: I don't think they will have the ability to do it. Because they only control one chamber of the bicameral legislature, they can pass bills they can try to limit spending on their own, but the Senate's sitting there and it's going to basically just stop whatever it doesn't like and of course then the President is sitting there able to veto things that he doesn't like. And so there really aren't many pathways for the Republicans to move forward to rein in spending, even if they had the will to do it. But if I'm honest about it, the Republican Party hasn't really had the will to deal with spending in any kind of meaningful way for a long time. I think, what, the 1990s was perhaps really the last time we saw a Republican party that was strongly focused on limiting spending, and they were successful to some extent then. But right now, I know the rhetoric in the party is anti-spending, but I'm not sure the voting has really matched up with that over the last decade or two.

REICHARD: Okay, moving to the border problem. House Republicans last month presented a security proposal for the border. It outlines numerous measures to try and stem the record surge of traffic at the border. But what can the House really do with regard to the border without cooperation from the Senate or the White House?

SMITH: Yeah, they have made some interesting suggestions. They want to increase enforcement and increase budgeting. They would like to require legal status for people to be hired for jobs in the United States, for example. And I think all those are actually somewhat popular, frankly. But their ability to get this done right now with where they are in Congress is very difficult. But I think you have to say, from the Republican Party's perspective, immigration is an incredibly important issue symbolically, as much as it is as a policy issue. Republicans are making some pretty serious inroads, I would say, with the Hispanic community, with the African American community. And so however they craft their immigration rhetoric, as well as their policy, it's going to have one eye on 2024, I think, especially that Hispanic constituency, possibly. So I don't think they have a lot of ability to actually do something, but they do have a strong interest and making it an important part of their discussion.

REICHARD: Alright, the FBI now. Republicans have also vowed investigations of alleged politically partisan behavior within the FBI, related to the “Twitter files” and other issues. How far will Republicans dig in on that and what might we expect to see?

SMITH: Yeah, I think we’ve talked about immigration, we’ve talked about spending, I think this is actually an area where the Republicans can do some damage, if you want to think of it in those terms. With control the majority in the House and with control of a majority of committees, as long as the chairs of those committees like Jim Jordan, in Judiciary, for example, can maintain their committee unity and, as a leadership, exercise some will over that committee, they can launch investigations into a lot of different areas. There's also discussion now of perhaps even creating new committees to investigate a select committee, for example, on the weaponization of the federal government has been put forward, possibly, as we look into this transition. And so there are going to be avenues for investigation. They can subpoena materials from the White House. They can subpoena testimony. And they can really get a lot of traction over this, I think generate probably a fair bit of media attention, and potentially do some significant damage to the Biden White House in the process. And so I think this is the area where they can probably have the most effect. Now we could argue about is this productive? Is it good for the country? Is it useful? In a lot of ways we could argue about that, but I think they're gonna have a big impact in the investigatory arena.

REICHARD: What do you think Republicans might do differently over the next two years from what they did the last time they controlled the House?

SMITH: I’m not sure there’s a lot they can do all that differently. I think there's some potential that you're gonna see some interesting wrinkles, maybe, here or there. But there's a real struggle right now in all of Congress, not Republican or Democrat, just all of Congress. There's this norm in Congress that we've talked about as political scientists for quite some time. It's the workhorse versus show horse discussion. Members of Congress are always sort of divided over, do they want to be a workhorse in Congress and propose policy and build relationships and try to put together those voting coalitions to get things done? Or do they want to be a show horse? Do they want to go on cable news? Do they want to do podcasts? Do they want to do speaking tours and raise money? And so there's always been this tension there between members who want to do one or the other. I think over the last decade-plus we've seen a real tilt toward more show horse members of Congress, where they're more interested in the performance of being in Congress, and building their platform, and maybe running for the Senate or running for the presidency without nearly as much focus on the actual nitty gritty work of Congress itself. And so, in that sense, I'm not sure the Republicans are going to do all that much different over the next couple of years in what we've seen. This is a real issue within the GOP caucus. It's an issue within the Democratic Caucus as well. And I think that's the tension right now that's within the parties. How the leadership handles that I think is vital. You know, can you whip them together to actually get things done when all they really might want to do is simply elevate their profile and maybe increase their possibilities for higher office. And so Congress itself right now, I think you could argue, is somewhat dysfunctional for this reason and some others.

REICHARD: Mark Caleb Smith from Cedarville University. Professor, thanks so much!

SMITH: Thank you. It’s always a pleasure.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s the 4th of January, 2023. Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s time for Washington Wednesday.

Well, the 118th Congress is officially in session. Republicans now enjoy a slim majority in the House after the November election.

But Democrats still control the Senate and, of course, the White House.

So what can be accomplished with divided government and what should we expect?

Joining us now to help answer that is Mark Caleb Smith. He’s a political science professor at Cedarville University in Ohio.

REICHARD: Professor, good morning and happy new year.

MARK CALEB SMITH, GUEST: Happy New Year to you. It’s always good to be with you.

REICHARD: Well, let’s start with the question I mentioned a moment ago. Without the presidency or full control of Congress, what kinds of things can the new House majority accomplish over the next two years?

SMITH: I mean, if by accomplish, we're talking about policy and significant policy goals, really probably very little will be accomplished, which I think for them means they're probably going to focus more on politics and 2024 and positioning the party to be competitive in 2024, probably more than anything else. And so it doesn't mean they can't do anything, doesn't mean nothing important can happen. But it just radically changes the agenda when we have divided government like this.

REICHARD: How does House leadership determine who will sit on particular committees, who will lead those committees, etc.? Explain that process if you would.

SMITH: Yeah, this is a hot button issue right now because there's lots of discussion of stripping people of committee assignments and doing other things. So typically, the way that committees function for the Republicans and the Democrats is each party has a committee—a steering committee is what they usually call it—that distributes committee assignments for their party members. So you can think of this even as a committee on committees if we want to be funny about it. But these committees make decisions about who will sit on what other committees there are in the House. And there are some rules, they kind of go by, or more norms, I guess, is probably the better way to put it, sort of typical way they do things. Usually, if you're on a committee and you want to stay on it, you can if you're reelected, and you can stay on that committee for the next Congress. They take into account seniority, they take into account how close your elections have been lately, but probably one of the most vital elements they consider is how loyal have you been to the leadership? Because these committees, the steering committees are packed full of loyalists to the party leaders. And this is just one way that the Speaker of the House or the House Minority Leader can exercise influence over the members of their caucus.

REICHARD: Republicans will have a majority in the House, but again, a very slim one. And there are multiple factions as you refer to within the House GOP. How tall of a task will it be for leadership to try and get House Republicans on the same page on so many issues?

SMITH: Yeah. I mean, I can understand why someone would want to be Speaker of the House. I mean, it's a historic position. It's a Constitutional position. It's in line for the presidency. Lots of benefits, go with it—prestige, some power. But just purely in terms right now of leading a group of politicians and trying to accomplish things in terms of policy outcomes, being Speaker of the House, if you're Republican, is it incredibly difficult and complicated and maybe even impossible job. This isn't even a discussion of a particular person who wants to be Speaker. This is just more of over the last couple of decades, this has been a very difficult group to lead. And I think really, this goes back to the Tea Party movement, where you saw very strong factions developed within the House Republicans, and those factions are still there. So we have the House Freedom Caucus members, we have more traditional mainline establishment Republicans, and those groups just simply don't mix very well right now. And I think Donald Trump's presence over the last seven years or so has just complicated this. And so just leading the group of Republicans, difficult. Now, the Democrats have their own issues. They have a strong divide between progressive Democrats and other Democrats in the Democratic caucus right now. But it seems like those progressive Democrats are a little bit more willing to get on board and be unified with their party leadership compared to perhaps the House Freedom Caucus members for the Republicans.

REICHARD: Okay, let’s talk money now. $1.7 trillion spending bill last week. Eighteen GOP senators voted for it. Some House Republicans supported it too. But most Republicans called it a bloated monstrosity with too much pork and wasteful spending.

Will the new House majority have the ability and the will to rein in that spending?

SMITH: I don't think they will have the ability to do it. Because they only control one chamber of the bicameral legislature, they can pass bills they can try to limit spending on their own, but the Senate's sitting there and it's going to basically just stop whatever it doesn't like and of course then the President is sitting there able to veto things that he doesn't like. And so there really aren't many pathways for the Republicans to move forward to rein in spending, even if they had the will to do it. But if I'm honest about it, the Republican Party hasn't really had the will to deal with spending in any kind of meaningful way for a long time. I think, what, the 1990s was perhaps really the last time we saw a Republican party that was strongly focused on limiting spending, and they were successful to some extent then. But right now, I know the rhetoric in the party is anti-spending, but I'm not sure the voting has really matched up with that over the last decade or two.

REICHARD: Okay, moving to the border problem. House Republicans last month presented a security proposal for the border. It outlines numerous measures to try and stem the record surge of traffic at the border. But what can the House really do with regard to the border without cooperation from the Senate or the White House?

SMITH: Yeah, they have made some interesting suggestions. They want to increase enforcement and increase budgeting. They would like to require legal status for people to be hired for jobs in the United States, for example. And I think all those are actually somewhat popular, frankly. But their ability to get this done right now with where they are in Congress is very difficult. But I think you have to say, from the Republican Party's perspective, immigration is an incredibly important issue symbolically, as much as it is as a policy issue. Republicans are making some pretty serious inroads, I would say, with the Hispanic community, with the African American community. And so however they craft their immigration rhetoric, as well as their policy, it's going to have one eye on 2024, I think, especially that Hispanic constituency, possibly. So I don't think they have a lot of ability to actually do something, but they do have a strong interest and making it an important part of their discussion.

REICHARD: Alright, the FBI now. Republicans have also vowed investigations of alleged politically partisan behavior within the FBI, related to the “Twitter files” and other issues. How far will Republicans dig in on that and what might we expect to see?

SMITH: Yeah, I think we’ve talked about immigration, we’ve talked about spending, I think this is actually an area where the Republicans can do some damage, if you want to think of it in those terms. With control the majority in the House and with control of a majority of committees, as long as the chairs of those committees like Jim Jordan, in Judiciary, for example, can maintain their committee unity and, as a leadership, exercise some will over that committee, they can launch investigations into a lot of different areas. There's also discussion now of perhaps even creating new committees to investigate a select committee, for example, on the weaponization of the federal government has been put forward, possibly, as we look into this transition. And so there are going to be avenues for investigation. They can subpoena materials from the White House. They can subpoena testimony. And they can really get a lot of traction over this, I think generate probably a fair bit of media attention, and potentially do some significant damage to the Biden White House in the process. And so I think this is the area where they can probably have the most effect. Now we could argue about is this productive? Is it good for the country? Is it useful? In a lot of ways we could argue about that, but I think they're gonna have a big impact in the investigatory arena.

REICHARD: What do you think Republicans might do differently over the next two years from what they did the last time they controlled the House?

SMITH: I’m not sure there’s a lot they can do all that differently. I think there's some potential that you're gonna see some interesting wrinkles, maybe, here or there. But there's a real struggle right now in all of Congress, not Republican or Democrat, just all of Congress. There's this norm in Congress that we've talked about as political scientists for quite some time. It's the workhorse versus show horse discussion. Members of Congress are always sort of divided over, do they want to be a workhorse in Congress and propose policy and build relationships and try to put together those voting coalitions to get things done? Or do they want to be a show horse? Do they want to go on cable news? Do they want to do podcasts? Do they want to do speaking tours and raise money? And so there's always been this tension there between members who want to do one or the other. I think over the last decade-plus we've seen a real tilt toward more show horse members of Congress, where they're more interested in the performance of being in Congress, and building their platform, and maybe running for the Senate or running for the presidency without nearly as much focus on the actual nitty gritty work of Congress itself. And so, in that sense, I'm not sure the Republicans are going to do all that much different over the next couple of years in what we've seen. This is a real issue within the GOP caucus. It's an issue within the Democratic Caucus as well. And I think that's the tension right now that's within the parties. How the leadership handles that I think is vital. You know, can you whip them together to actually get things done when all they really might want to do is simply elevate their profile and maybe increase their possibilities for higher office. And so Congress itself right now, I think you could argue, is somewhat dysfunctional for this reason and some others.

REICHARD: Last but certainly not least, I have to ask you about the drama surrounding Kevin McCarthy and the speakership. What was the last time we saw this much drama in a speaker election and how do you see this playing out?

SMITH: I wouldn’t consider myself a congressional historian in the sense that I have a real firm idea of every leadership election that's ever happened in the House, for example. But in my lifetime, for sure, I've never seen this much drama surrounding a leadership election. There's always some back and forth and there's always some rivalry that happens. But this almost always takes place behind closed doors, or it might be leaked and you'll hear about what took place, but it isn't done in public. And so all the Republicans will meet and they'll decide who they would want to put forward as Speaker. They'll be back and forth and votes within that closed door session, and eventually they'll select someone, and then we get to the floor of the House. They'll all vote together for that person to become Speaker. Well, that's not what's happening right now. Right now on the floor of the House, it’s gone public. There's division. Kevin McCarthy doesn't have enough votes to win on the first ballot. And from what I know, he's the first Minority Leader of Congress to become majority leader and failed to secure the speakership on the first ballot since the 1920s. And so this is a long time that we've seen this kind of drama for a speaker election, but, again, the House GOP right now is complicated. It's diverse, and who knows where it will land, frankly.

REICHARD: Mark Caleb Smith from Cedarville University. Professor, thanks so much!

SMITH: Thank you. It’s always a pleasure.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.