Kevin McCarthy should have read Simmel
Coalitions are inherently unstable
Like any respectable political junkie, I’ve spent the last day and a half watching C-Span as the House of Representatives under Republican leadership try to elect a new Speaker of the House. I’ve learned a lot about the interesting ways that the House is distributed alphabetically (more Democrats in the front third of the alphabet) after watching six roll call votes. I’ve kept listening to stranger and stranger nomination speeches that say little about the strengths of either Republican candidate.
The rebel faction started with 19 votes on the first ballot, increasing to 20 on the second ballot due to Florida’s Byron Donalds switching his vote. As a result, he became the faction’s nominee for ballots three through six. Donalds has served a single term in the House but, as Representative Chip Roy (R TX) observed there would be two Black nominees for Speaker (joining Hakeem Jeffries for the Democrats) before ruining the comment with an MLK “content of their character” throwaway.
As I said, the vote distribution was identical for the fourth, fifth, and sixth ballots. As I write this, the House will pick up again later this evening. It’s hard to predict exactly what will happen next. Perhaps an alternative candidate will arise. Maybe Democrats will help find a Republican centrist (?) who can become speaker.
It was probably not the best start for McCarthy to have moved his stuff into the official Speaker’s office before the vote had even happened. But as I watched the coverage and read varied analyses, I realized that McCarthy should have paid more attention to sociology — especially those theorists who dealt with issues of coalitions and conflict.
One of the first things I remember learning in Introductory Sociology decades ago was what German sociologist Georg Simmel called “the inherent instability of coalitions”. He argued that if there were more than two parties with a power imbalance, the two weaker parties could join together to overcome the stronger one. Simmel would be able to explain why 20 holdouts could stymie 201 party enthusiasts (because the Democrats remain unified). The minority faction has been able to demand all kinds of concessions — most of which McCarthy agreed to — that have only strengthened their relative power. And unless the current balance of power shifts, it’s quite likely that further ballots will look like earlier ones.
Another sociological theorist comes to mind that explains the current situation in the House: Lewis Coser. He was known for writing on the integrative functions of conflict. It is in this regard that you hear Republicans argue that their diverse views are good for the party (while ignoring that they are far less diverse demographically or ideologically than the Democrats). But there are conditions to Coser’s conflict. Importantly, it depends upon a belief that the conflict being addressed is seen as legitimate by both sides.
The nomination speeches from the Not-Kevin faction makes clear that the issue of legitimacy is central to the current conflict. The NK faction sees themselves as the only ones willing to fight for Americans (I’ll spare you from listening to the speeches from Lauren Boebert or Scott Perry) and everyone else is part of why “Washington is Broken”.
When legitimacy is denied, two things happen. First, no concession is possible because the other side is not seen as good faith bargainers. Second, the parties dig in to their respective positions even more strongly than ever.
That means that however things shake out in terms of Republican House leadership, we’ll be responding to the Never Kevin faction for most of the next two years. It will be good news for late night comics but pretty awful for the rest of us.
Lesson: Take More Sociology!