Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Jim Jordan, House Republicans and the urgent need to bridge divides

Opinion

Jim Jordan, House Republicans and the urgent need to bridge divides
Getty Images

Richard Davies is a solutions journalist and podcast consultant. He co-hosts two bi-weekly podcasts: "Let's Find Common Ground" for commongroundcommittee.org, and "How Do We Fix It?"

Two weeks ago The House of Representatives voted to fire Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House. Republicans remain deadlocked about who should replace him. The work of Congress is paralyzed at an especially dangerous time for America at home and abroad.


After the murderous terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas, the threat of a much wider conflict in the Middle East, the continuing war in Ukraine, and the very real prospect of a mid-November Federal shutdown at home, a major branch of the U.S. Government is effectively closed for business. Not a single House vote was held last week.

While the causes of the deep dysfunction among the House majority are complex, a most important issue at stake is quite simple. Do GOP members accept the need for bridge building and common ground with moderate Democrats? Congressman Jim Jordan and his hard right followers in the Freedom Caucus have built their careers on rejecting attempts at legislative compromise, but many elected Republicans know that bridging is a vital part of governing. Will they decide to air their doubts in public?

During a secret ballot vote of House Republicans on Friday, Jordan won the speakership nomination. But he lacks the votes he needs on the floor— by a large margin. When the GOP conference held another vote to count how many members would support Jordan in a floor vote, only 152 Republicans said they would. Fifty-five said no.

All House Democrats would vote against Jordan as Speaker.

“It remains astonishing that the Republicans would consider making Jordan speaker,” wrote liberal historian Heather Cox Richardson in her daily newsletter Friday. “The hallmarks of that position are an ability to negotiate and to shepherd legislation through Congress… Jordan has none of those qualities; he is a flamethrower who, in 16 years in the House, has not managed to get a single bill through the House, let alone into law.”

“These guys want to be in the minority,” was how moderate Republican Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon described hardliners in his own party. “I think they would prefer that because they could just vote no and yell and scream all the time.”

Voters remain deeply skeptical of Congress. When asked by a CNN poll last week, “How well do you feel the government in Washington represents the views of people like yourself?” 81% of adult respondents answered, “not well or not at all well.” The same survey provides little comfort for Democrats. About six-in-ten adults said they were “angry at both parties” for failing to deal with the country’s problems.

One question is how much this matters to extreme partisans on both sides? The present political crisis can be blamed on those Republicans who disdain the government. But performative politicians of the left and right— many with large social media followings— value clicks over compromise and attention over legislative results. They seek power and campaign funds by attacking anyone who challenges their narrow, rigid view of the world.

Whatever the result of this week’s House maneuvers the question remains: How many elected representatives from both parties will seek common ground with the other side and attempt to bridge divides?


Read More

Business meeting, blurred background and people in office for teamwork, collaboration and planning

Another recruitment drive won’t fix a nonprofit board. A practical guide to sharing real decision-making power with diverse members: acknowledge, affirm, act.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

Before Recruiting Diverse Board Members, Examine Who Holds Power

Nonprofit leaders keep asking me where they will find the next generation of diverse board talent. My question is what those leaders will be allowed to change once they arrive. In this piece, I outline concrete steps boards can take to ensure diverse members have real opportunities to shape organizational decision-making and to translate good intentions into meaningful progress.

In my board service and consulting work, I hear the concern from executives and grassroots activists alike. They worry about recruiting successors, sustaining funding, and governing organizations whose work increasingly depends on partnerships beyond their own walls. I share those concerns. I also wonder whether another recruitment initiative will solve what troubles them.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less