At this writing, it appears unclear whether Jim Jordan will succeed where Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise failed in gaining the effectively unanimous support of the House Republican caucus. I jokingly suggested over the weekend that it may be time for them to just replace the speaker with ordinary voters holding up placards, but in all seriousness, if Jordan also fails to gain the necessary support, I’d suggest that the hunt for a consensus candidate should focus on one essential qualification often shared by leaders chosen in desperation by a divided caucus: Pick somebody who’s retiring from the House at the end of 2024.
Admittedly, that could be a short list. Only a few Republicans have thus far formally announced that they are not seeking reelection. Jim Banks (Ind.) and Alex Mooney (W.Va.) are running for the Senate, and Dan Bishop is running for attorney general of North Carolina. In all likelihood, none of them would want to be speaker while running for statewide office, although Mooney in particular is an underdog in his primary against Jim Justice. I believe the only other announced retirement thus far is Victoria Spartz (Ind.); putting it bluntly, I’d say the current intraparty politics of the Ukraine war make it deeply improbable that a consensus could be formed around a Ukrainian immigrant with a distinct accent as the face of the caucus. (George Santos is unlikely to return to the House, but I hope I don’t have to explain why Speaker Santos would be a bad idea.) That leaves the caucus settling on someone who is either willing to retire in order to serve as speaker for the rest of the term or willing to formalize an intent to retire that may already be known within the caucus (as these things often are).
There are, in normal times, good reasons to want a leader who will be asking the caucus for another term. But these are not normal times. When the caucus is so divided and dysfunctional, the obvious advantage of picking a speaker who is there just through next year is that he or she would give people time to organize for a fuller battle over control of the caucus in January 2025. That could get some powerful egos to sign on for the short term. Picking a weak, lame-duck speaker would also empower those in the caucus who dislike a repeat of McCarthy’s dealmaking. It would be bound to lead to some shutdowns, which would be terrible politics for Republicans to little policy end; but at this point almost anybody chosen to replace McCarthy will ultimately go that route. The lame-duck option at least offers a way to end the stalemate that is face-saving for all factions.