editorials
T he tumultuous process of the Republican Party’s
eff ort to elect Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as speaker
of the U.S. House of Representatives played out like
a slow-motion car crash on a NASCAR racetrack.

In a voting ritual that had largely been pro-forma
for more than a century — with the party holding
the majority of seats in the chamber anointing that
party’s consensus choice for the speaker position —
a group of hard-right Republican dissidents refused
to go along with the majority. Many predicted that
the holdouts would relent after a couple of rounds of
voting. But that’s not what happened.

Late on Jan. 6, after an unprecedented 15
rounds, the ordeal fi nally ended. McCarthy got
his majority vote. But the victory came at a price.

In addition to the very public revelation of the
dysfunctionality of the Republican Party in what
should have been a celebratory elevation of one of
its leaders, McCarthy was forced to give in to the
holdouts on several of the group’s governance and
process demands.

Those bucking the system were made up primarily
of members of the far-right House Freedom Caucus.

Some holdouts had a score to settle with McCarthy
and refused to support his candidacy under any
conditions. Others demanded a long list of procedural
and operational concessions for the conduct of
Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.,
is sworn in on Jan. 7.

business in the House, which would elevate their
infl uence notwithstanding their relatively small
numbers and enable them to pursue their agenda
without many of the limitations built into past practice.

We are concerned that some of McCarthy’s forced
concessions could gum up the administrative process
in the House and unnecessarily interfere with the
orderly operation of important legislative work in
the chamber. But there is one concession relating
to an expansion of legislative and appropriations
opportunities in the House that could benefi t a wide
cross-section of House members.

Over the last couple of decades, we have seen
a signifi cant consolidation of power by House
leadership on both sides of the aisle. It began
when Republicans were in power in the 1990s
and has continued until now. Under this approach,
majority and minority leaders in the House exert
signifi cant control over rulemaking, the legislative
process and the appropriations process. Those not in
leadership have little opportunity for input, as many
bills and related appropriations decisions are not
routinely run through a comprehensive committee
process. The holdout group insisted on changes
that will decentralize control in the House and
open opportunities for a more democratic process,
including a more open use of the committee process.

McCarthy reluctantly agreed.

We recognize that the House Freedom Caucus
has a wholly unappealing agenda. We oppose their
eff orts to cause chaos in the House. We oppose
their eff ort to force a default on the national debt.

We oppose virtually everything the group stands
for and is trying to accomplish. But some of the
governance changes they have demanded could
lead to favorable results for rank-and-fi le members in
the House — and that could be a good thing. ■
Fulfi lling a Campaign Promise
P oliticians like to show voters that they’re living up
to their campaign promises. But smart politicians
know that governing requires more than pleasing
the faithful. When Israel’s national security minister,
Itamar Ben-Gvir, toured Jerusalem’s Temple Mount
last week, he fulfi lled a long-standing promise to his
far-right supporters. But in doing so, he prompted
both expected and less-expected reactions.

To his credit, Ben-Gvir visited the Temple Mount
without an advance announcement and did so
early in the morning when the holy site was not
crowded with the Muslim faithful. He visited with
only a small entourage and left after 15 minutes.

In the circumstances, the visit was surprisingly
restrained for someone regularly described as a
“right-wing provocateur.” Thus far, the visit has not
prompted a mass backlash from Arab worshippers,
similar to the one following the late Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon’s more theatrical visit in 2000.

Still, there have been predictable international
diplomatic reactions. Thus, it was not surprising
that Israel’s regional peace partners, new Abraham
12 JANUARY 12, 2023 | JEWISH EXPONENT
Accords signees and potential peace or accord
partners, along with the Palestinians, condemned
the visit.

The United States — following the Biden
administration’s promise to judge the new Israeli
government not by the makeup of its members but
by the actions it takes — issued guarded criticism,
calling the move “unacceptable” and urging Israel
not to change the status quo on the Temple Mount,
which currently allows Jews to visit there but not
to pray. In response, newly reinstalled Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assured critics that
there will be no change in the status quo.

All of that was largely predictable. What was less
predictable were the public, heated reactions of
Ben-Gvir’s Haredi Orthodox coalition partners (who
together hold 18 seats in the 64-member coalition),
who in what appeared to be an orchestrated
response criticized the Temple Mount visit in very
direct terms. In Yated Ne’eman, the United Torah
Judaism’s party newspaper, the visit was criticized
as “unnecessary and dangerous provocation” that
places the lives of Israel’s Jewish citizens at risk.

The front-page article went on to accuse Ben-Gvir
of “upsetting the Arab world, angering the world
and drawing strong American condemnation.”
Similar condemnations were issued by Haredi rabbis
and politicians.

What drives such criticism is the belief that it is
contrary to Jewish law for Jews to visit the Temple
Mount. Thus, as stated in the Shas newspaper
HaDerech, it “is a duty to protest actions that
are prohibited and contrary to halachah,
certainly when it comes to the Temple Mount,
which has been prohibited by all the adjudicators
in all generations.”
The proper approach to the undisputed religious
sanctity of the Temple Mount is a matter of
longstanding debate between the Haredi Orthodox
and religious Zionist Jews — particularly regarding
the propriety of Jewish prayer at the site. That
dispute has now been brought out in the open. The
next steps by Ben-Gvir and his supporters need to
be watched very carefully. ■
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom
Decentralization of Power in Congress