OPINION:
The political commentariat has been working overtime in the last few days trying to convince people that a handful of bumpy votes in the House — primarily those about sending cash to Israel or sending Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas packing — are dispositive signs of the eschaton.
The New York Times headlined one article “A Close Look at the Chaotic House Republican Majority.” CNBC clutched its pearls: “The failure of the impeachment bill represents a major blow to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who had portrayed the vote to impeach Mayorkas as a key part of House Republicans’ broader siege against the Biden administration.”
Reuters offered: “A day after back-to-back failures on two high-profile bills … Speaker Mike Johnson faced doubts about his leadership on Wednesday, as Congress lurched toward another government shutdown deadline in less than a month.”
Oh, my.
Here’s another way of thinking about those votes in the House: That’s what a functioning democracy looks like. People have differing opinions about the correct course of action, then they vote — which in the House is a remarkably open and transparent process that allows everyone to see how everyone else has voted in real time — and then we proceed.
It is not terribly different from the way groups of people all over the world make decisions about everything, be it where to have lunch or to whom we give authority over nuclear weapons.
The problem in Washington is that over the years, the democratic process has become so rigid and ossified that any departure from the preferences of leadership, especially in the House, is viewed as some sort of cataclysmic failure.
People are so used to the kabuki that they are uncertain how to proceed when seeing an improvisational performance.
Mr. Johnson’s approach is different from those of his predecessors. He correctly believes that the simplest way to resolve potential disputes is through voting. Do you want a more generous deduction for state and local taxes? Let’s vote on that. Do you want to give aid to Israel without including other issues? Wonderful, let’s vote. Is your particular white whale impeaching Mr. Mayorkas? Super, let’s vote.
Mr. Johnson knows that voting is an excellent way to both discover and aggregate preferences. That’s why almost all humans do it in circumstances trivial and important.
Voting is also an excellent way — and probably the best way — to reduce friction within a group of people. Voting and the conversation that precedes it ensures that everyone in a group has a chance to be heard and understood. It also makes it clear where the balance of opinion is on any particular issue.
Given the narrow margins and the steady-state rowdiness of the House, the speaker is pursuing the course that ultimately will lead to the best results. There is no other way to lead the House under the current circumstances.
He is also pursuing a course where his preferences will not always emerge victorious.
That’s healthy. No group of people should defer to their leaders on every question. Only in Washington would the simple act of having and recognizing disagreements be a sign of dysfunction.
Mr. Johnson’s decision to encourage votes also requires some courage on his part. Recognizing that the better part of leadership sometimes involves sublimating your own preferences for the good of the team is difficult. We are all burdened by ego.
Mr. Johnson has chosen the right — if difficult — course.
• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times and served as deputy director for legislative affairs for President Donald Trump.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.