Two House votes highlight the factionalism of the GOP in a post-Trump era

ALEX SEITEL: Like millions of Americans, I was mesmerized by former President Trump’s impeachment trial. I was impressed by the clarity of argument by the prosecution, supported by ample evidence and disappointed by the defense team’s flippancy towards the attempted insurrection of our democratic government. 

Leading into the trial, I felt with strong certainty that the 45th President would be acquitted - there simply aren’t enough Republican Senators who would vote their conscience over their party. Still, after hearing closing arguments, I remained hopeful. It wasn’t enough hope to believe in a conviction, but enough to think that the strength of the evidence presented could change some minds. With the prosecution’s ample evidence, it was hard to imagine how some senators could feel that January 6 happened without Trump’s sustained insistence that the election was stolen and that his supporters needed to take action to rectify the result. 

While seven Republican Senators ultimately voted for conviction, only two were a surprise: Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. This fact - that only two Senators voted in an expected way - caused me to wonder why. What is unique about these two?

When analyzing this closer, it makes sense that it was these two Senators whose votes were swayed. Sen. Burr was just re-elected and won’t face another reelection challenge for six years. Sen. Cassidy has announced that this is his last term. These two had nothing to lose. 

Since voting for the former President’s conviction, both senators have been formally censured by their state Republican parties and have faced backlash from countless constituents. While censuring members simply because of a vote is anti-democratic, it was not unexpected. Trump’s rhetoric of intolerance is now becoming standard within the GOP leadership. Trumpism isn’t gone because Trump is out of the White House. 

These two Senators weren’t alone in debating whether or not to vote to convict. In a speech following the vote, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell forcefully explained that he believed Trump was solely responsible for the attempted insurrection, the Senate didn’t have the authority to convict a former president. Putting aside the fact that Sen. McConnell was the main person responsible for delaying the start date of the trial, it is clear that Sen. McConnell was walking the line between maintaining his party’s power, or voting the way he knew was right. “There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it,” said McConnell after voting for acquittal. 

The impeachment vote raises many questions. What does the future of the Republican party look like if politicians know they will be punished for voting a certain way? Should politicians vote for what they believe in even if they know their constituents would have voted a different way? Are party politics more important than individual beliefs? 

While, of course, these questions don’t have simple answers, two recent House votes help demonstrate the conflicts between Republican party traditions and Trumpism for elected officials. 

After voting for Donald Trump’s impeachment, Rep. Liz Cheney, the third-ranking House Republican, faced intense backlash from her pro-Trump Republican colleagues, many of whom implied that she was a traitor to the party. Just three weeks after the impeachment vote, House Republicans voted on removing Cheney from her leadership positions. Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz boldly stated, “We have the votes to remove to Liz Cheney.”

Despite this claim, Cheney held onto her position. In a vote of 145-61, House Republicans decisively maintained that Liz Cheney should maintain her rank. Clearly, Rep. Gaetz misjudged the outcome of the vote, but the question is whether he was simply incorrect or if that many members changed their vote.  

Days after the Cheney vote, the House took a vote to remove newly-elected Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green from her committee assignments. Taylor Green, who has previously publicly supported QAnon conspiracies and made violent comments toward Democratic leaders, was removed from her committees in a vote of only 230-199, with 11 House Republicans joining all of the House Democrats. 

These two votes illustrate an interesting difference. The Cheney vote addressed disapproval with the way she voted on impeachment. The Taylor Green vote addressed disapproval with her controversial behavior. Yet, 54 more House Republicans voted to keep Taylor Green with her committee assignments than Cheney. So how could it be that these two votes were so disparagingly different? 

The key difference is how the votes were conducted. The vote for Cheney’s removal was done through a secret vote, meaning that it wasn’t known who voted which way. Essentially, they could vote their conscience without fear of censure from their state party or any pushback from their constituents. Conversely, Taylor Green’s vote was done in a traditional roll call method, ensuring that both other members and constituents knew who voted for her removal. Thus, it appears that 54 House Republicans voted their conscience in the secret vote while voting with their party in the roll call vote. 

We will never know how many Republican House members would have voted to strip Taylor Green of her committee assignments in a secret vote, but I suspect it would have been significantly higher. However, the comparison between these two votes illustrate at least one thing: Republican politicians feel immense pressure to vote in line with the Trump GOP faction. They fear losing their seat if they vote in a way that could be perceived as not supporting the party, and in particular in a way perceived as not supporting the former president. They choose their position over their conscience. 

We, as Americans, need to think about whether this is the way we want our elected officials to behave, and if this behavior continues, how it could be detrimental towards our democracy. Strict party-line votes are rampant in Congress, and not just in censure votes. Elected officials feel immense pressure to vote with their party, resulting in the polarization of our entire governmental process. 

Alex Seitel is a sophomore from Minneapolis pursuing a double major in government and history from Georgetown College.