911爆料网

When California Representative Kevin McCarthy finally earned the speaker鈥檚 gavel earlier this month after an unprecedented听15 rounds of votes听on the House floor, it required a听slew of backdoor deals. McCarthy was听tight-lipped听about all the concessions he had to make to win. But now with his doling out of听all-important committee assignments, the details of that horse-trading are rapidly coming into view.

The hotly contested assignments involve two of the most radioactive Republicans on Capitol Hill. New York Representative George Santos has been tapped for the听House small business and science committees, and Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene for听the House homeland security committee. Both backed McCarthy鈥檚 speaker bid from the outset. But there鈥檚 plenty of speculation that their support hinged on receiving choice appointments.

The selections are most striking for what they symbolise. Santos has been accused of lying about nearly听every aspect of his r茅sum茅, including his听past business experience. Greene has likewise found herself embroiled in controversy after controversy听related to national security. As one journalist听observed, McCarthy鈥檚 picks of Santos and Greene seem designed for 鈥�(depending on your viewpoint) maximum irony or maximum trolling鈥�.

Santos and his fantasy claims
The congressman now calling himself George Santos (he鈥檚听gone by another name previously) has expressed听almost no remorse听for the countless lies he鈥檚 told voters. Among his most fanciful 鈥渆mbellishments鈥� include those involving finances and prior business activities. Santos claimed he had an MBA听from New York University听and worked for glitzy financial firms听Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. None of that appears to be true. Santos has admitted lying听about his career听and background, without explaining why. (As it turned out, however, he did work for听a call centre.) Santos continues to听say that the media听is 鈥渕aking outrageous claims鈥� about him.

Yet the depths of Santos鈥檚 lies possibly stretch much further, casting even more doubt on the man who will shape regulations and laws governing small businesses. Where Santos made all of his money is听one question. When running for Congress in 2020, Santos听reported听a US$55,000 (拢44,000) a year salary; in 2022, that figure was over US$750,000. Previously, Santos worked for a company, Harbor City Capital, that鈥檚 been charged with orchestrating a听Ponzi scheme, which defrauded investors. The finances of his own corporation, the Devolder Organization, have听raised eyebrows,听as well.

MTG: the conspiracy queen
Like Santos, Republican firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene is also听no stranger to scandal听in the area where she鈥檒l have power and oversight. In 2021, she was barred from holding听any committee assignments听by the Democrat-led House after making violence-inciting comments, including听endorsing the execution of prominent Democrats. Since her election, Greene has promoted听QAnon鈥檚听falsehoods and听other conspiracy theories. Detractors insist she鈥檚 unfit to serve, much less in an influential post aimed at protecting the US from adversaries.

Most pertinent to her new position on the House homeland security committee, Greene appeared to be a supporter of the raid on the US Capitol and in defending its aftermath. For instance, she听remarked听that if former Trump strategist Steve Bannon had organised the insurrection, 鈥渨e would have won鈥� (a quote she later insisted was a joke). In 2019, Greene听goaded her Maga allies听to 鈥渟hut down the streets鈥�, 鈥渇lood the Capitol building鈥�, and 鈥渇lood all the government buildings 鈥� and go inside鈥�. She denies听calling for violence听and has said she was in favour of a peaceful protest.

What will they do?
Whereas Santos has given little indication of how he might approach the small business committee, Greene鈥檚 agenda is much more transparent. Notably, she鈥檒l continue to听push back听against providing support for Ukraine鈥檚 defences against Russia, leading other Republicans in an effort to听audit US aid to Kyiv. Additionally, Greene remains committed to curbing undocumented immigration听at the US-Mexico border, looking for ways to circumvent what she views as weak-kneed enforcement by the White House.

As lone members on their respective committees, however,听critics听can take solace that the more extreme impulses of both will probably have limited impact on policy. Several Republican colleagues have had听harsh听words听for both congress members, and moderates will try to quiet, if not silence, their voices. Still, the appointments grant a sheen of legitimacy to two pariahs badly in need of a political makeover. If they run for re-election in 2024, their appointments to high-profile committees won鈥檛 hurt them at the polls.

Republican risks
During McCarthy鈥檚 speaker fight, experts听fixed their gaze听on far-right flamethrowers such as Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert who opposed McCarthy from day one. The anti-McCarthy rebels realised his vulnerability, and exploited it in a听high-stakes game of 鈥渃hicken鈥�. But less attention was paid to McCarthy鈥檚 supporters like Santos and Greene, who鈥檝e ostensibly received quid pro quos.

Wheeling and dealing has always been a part of coalition-building in Washington. But there鈥檚 no doubt that McCarthy has pressed it to new levels 鈥� and that both Santos and Greene played their cards craftily. McCarthy has听denied reports听that he鈥檒l be the weakest House speaker in generations. Yet in caving to pressure to elevate two controversial Republicans to coveted House committees, McCarthy has already proven his feebleness.

Ultimately, the committee appointments say more about McCarthy and the fractured state听of the Republican party听than about Santos and Greene. With a听rambunctious conference听and a听razor-thin majority in the House, McCarthy had little choice but to bargain with the fringes if he wanted his position. Whether swing voters will penalise McCarthy and his allies for the committee picks remains unclear. For now, McCarthy would just as soon keep the selections under the radar.

This article first appeared in听The Conversation听on 20 January 2023.听

Links

• Original article in听The Conversation
• UCL Department of Political Science
• UCL Faculty of Social and听Historical Sciences