MUMBAI: The selection of candidates for the legislative council teachers constituency election on January 30 is dominated by the BJP even as the party claims that it is fighting the poll in alliance with the Balasahebanchi Shiv Sena (BSS), the Eknath Shinde faction of the Shiv Sena with which it shares power in the state.On Monday, BJP state unit president Chandrashekhar Bawankule at the Dadar office of the party announced the name of Dnyaneshwar Mhatre as the party candidate for the Konkan seat (Thane teachers constituency). He will be given the BJP's AB form. Bawankule said his candidature has been approved by the central leadership as well as chief minister Eknath Shinde and deputy chief minister Devendra Fadnavis. Mhatre's family was formerly associated with the Shiv Sena. Addressing a press conference along with Uday Samant of the BSS, Bawankule said the party had so far won only the Amravati graduate constituency seat.Bawankule said the Nagpur seat had always been contested by the Shikshak Parishad, which is ideologically inclined towards the BJP and this time too they would be announcing a candidate for the seat. "In Aurangabad the parishad did not have a candidate so we gave them Kiran Patil. In Amravati it is the BJP's Ranjit Patil," he said, adding that the Shikshak Parishad had been asked to withdraw its candidate for the Konkan seat. While the election is by first preference votes, the BJP is not taking any chances.For the Nashik graduates seat, Bawankule said a decision would be taken soon. The Shinde group of the Shiv Sena is keen to contest the seat as all the councillors of the Nashik Municipal Corporation had crossed over to its side after the split in the Shiv Sena.
MUMBAI: The selection of candidates for the upcoming MLC teacher’s constituency is clearly being dominated by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) even as the party claimed it was fighting the elections in alliance with the Balasahebanchi Shiv Sena (BSS), the Eknath Shinde faction of the Shiv Sena.The elections are to be held on January 30.BJP state unit president Chandrashekhar Bawankule on Monday announced the name of Dnyaneshwar Mhatre as the party’s candidate for the Konkan MLC seat (Thane Teacher’s constituency).He will be given the BJP’s AB form. Bawankule said his candidature has been approved by the central leadership as well as chief minister Eknath Shinde and deputy CM Devendra Fadnavis.Mhatre’s family has been formerly associated with the Shiv Sena. Addressing a press conference along with Uday Samant of the BSS, Bawankule said the party had so far won only the Amravati graduate constituency seat.The Nagpur seat, he said, has always been contested by the Shikshak Parishad that is ideologically inclined towards the BJP and this time too they would be announcing a candidate for the seat. “In Aurangabad the Parishad did not have a candidate so we gave them Kiran Patil. In Amravati it is the BJP’s Ranjit Patil,” he said, adding the Parishad had been asked to withdraw its candidate for the Konkan seat.While the election is by first preference votes, the BJP is not taking any chances.For the Nashik graduates seat, Bawankule said a decision would be taken soon. The Shinde group is keen to contest this election as all the councillors of the Nashik Municipal Corporation had crossed over to its side after the split in the Shiv Sena.It is therefore intent on fielding a candidate here. However, given Nashik’s religious importance the BJP is not willing to cede the seat to its alliance partner, said political observers.(With inputs from PTI)
On January 8, supporters of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro stormed and ransacked important government buildings in Brasilia, including the country’s Congress, the Presidential Palace and the Supreme Court. In scenes reminiscent of the January 6, 2021 insurrection in Washington DC, Bolsonarists demanded that the result of the presidential election of October 2022 be overturned.The uprising, lasted a little more than three hours. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has vowed to “punish” the wrongdoers and has blamed Bolsonaro, currently living in Florida and yet to officially concede defeat, for inflaming his supporters with false rhetoric on election fraud.Bolsanaro and Trump are among the rightwing populist leaders who have come to power in several countries by harnessing popular anti-establishment sentiment through intense anti-globalist and anti-minority rhetoric, and who have subsequently gone on to attack and subvert a range of democratic institutions in their countries.Trump and Bolsonaro have openly expressed support and admiration for each other, and Trump has earlier urged Brazilians to vote for the “Trump of the Tropics,” as Bolsonaro is often called.The events in Brazil on January 8 were a near-replay of what happened at the United States Capitol two years ago. In both cases, angry supporters of a president who had been defeated in an election — unfairly, they believed — stormed government buildings with the intention of “taking back” their country. In both cases, they were egged on by their leaders — Trump and Bolsonaro — with baseless claims of election fraud.In a speech on December 2, 2020, Trump said, “If we don’t root out the fraud, the tremendous and horrible fraud that’s taken place in our 2020 election, we don’t have a country anymore.”Two years later, Bolsonaro’s son used almost identical language, claiming that his father was the victim of “the greatest electoral fraud ever seen”.Both claims were debunked by authorities and the media in the two countries. But the claims of the leaders and their repeated parroting by their diehard followers was “proof” enough for many. Social media was used to spread disinformation and to organise demonstrations and protests against the “stolen elections”.The parallels between the uprisings in Washington DC and Brasilia are not coincidental. Rather, they are a part of a common playbook that rightwing populists have used to exploit anti-institutional anger and ultra-nationalist urges.Thomas Traumann, a Rio-based political expert, told The Guardian: “Trump is his (Bolsonaro’s) idol and his model. And what did Trump do? He contested, he didn’t accept defeat, he called people on to the streets and encouraged violent protests and left power without backing down and continued to engage his followers so they didn’t recognize the authority of the new government and thus kept his base fired up. This, for me, is Bolsonaro’s roadmap.”Brian Winter, a Brazil specialist, told The Guardian that Bolsonaro’s tactic of questioning the elections after he lost was “100 percent Trump inspired”.“They (Bolsonarists) have noticed that January 6 and Trump’s continuous denial of the election has not cost him his future – as a matter of fact it may have saved it. Because this image of invincibility is so important to both of these movements – and the only way that Donald Trump could lose and survive was by insisting that he didn’t lose,” Winter said.It takes years of undermining rhetoric and action to persuade almost half the population of a country to begin doubting the sanctity of its democratic elections and institutions.The attack on “Washington elites” and vows to “drain the swamp” became central to Trump’s rhetoric in 2015-16 as he launched his election campaign. Bolsonaro came to power after Brazil was rocked by corruption scandals and a crippling recession, and he promised to “clean things up”.Both men promised to deregulate businesses and reduce taxes, they sought to dismantle environment protection frameworks in their countries, and pushed unscientific and dangerous public policy responses to the Covid-19 pandemic.They exploited racial tensions and nativist insecurities to push their agendas. Importantly, both Trump and Bolsonaro expressed vocal opposition to “political correctness”, and engaged in openly racist, misogynistic, and homophobic messaging to pander to their base.The rise of leaders like Trump and Bolsonaro – also Viktor Orban of Hungary, Marine Le Pen of France, Geert Wilders of the Netherlands – has been situated in the context of growing wealth inequalities and changing racial and gender dynamics that have put people’s lives and identities in flux and engendered widespread insecurities. Right wing populism is a direct outcome of this, and grows by channelling people’s fears and frustrations.Philosopher and political scientist Noam Chomsky said in an interview that right wing populism is a manifestation of the “general collapse of the centrist political institutions during the neoliberal period.”He said, “What is taking place is reminiscent of Gramsci’s observations about an earlier period, ‘when the old is dying and the new cannot be born’; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”
Supporters of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro stormed Congress in the capital on Sunday, climbing on top of its roof and breaking the glass in its windows. Others demonstrators were gathering outside the presidential palace and Supreme Court, although it was not immediately clear whether they had managed to break into the buildings.The incidents, which recalled the Jan. 6 invasion of the U.S. Capitol, come just a week after leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was sworn in on Janauary 1st.Bolsonaro supporters have been protesting against Lula’s electoral win since Oct. 30, blocking roads, setting vehicles on fires and gathering outside military buildings, asking armed forces to intervene.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi Monday expressed “deep concern” over reports of rioting in Brazil by supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro and asserted democratic traditions must be respected by everyone.The supporters of far-right leader Bolsonaro, who refuse to accept his election defeat, stormed the Congress, the Supreme Court and the presidential palace in the Brazilian capital Sunday, a week after the inauguration of his leftist rival, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.Modi tweeted on Monday, “Deeply concerned about the news of rioting and vandalism against the State institutions in Brasilia. Democratic traditions must be respected by everyone. We extend our full support to the Brazilian authorities.”Deeply concerned about the news of rioting and vandalism against the State institutions in Brasilia. Democratic traditions must be respected by everyone. We extend our full support to the Brazilian authorities. @LulaOficial— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) January 9, 2023This is not the first that Modi has commented on such reports of violence. In January 2021, when the US Capitol in Washington DC was stormed by then US president Donald Trump’s supporters on what they called was a rigged election and its outcome, the prime minister had condemned the violence at that time.After the January 6 incident, Modi had condemned the violence and the storming of the US Capitol, saying “orderly and peaceful transfer of power must continue”.Taking to Twitter, the prime minister had said, “Distressed to see news about rioting and violence in Washington DC. Orderly and peaceful transfer of power must continue. The democratic process cannot be allowed to be subverted through unlawful protests.”
As rioters, supporting former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro who refused to accept his election defeat, stormed Congress, the Supreme Court and presidential palace in Rio De Janeiro on Sunday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his concern, saying democratic traditions must be respected by everyone.Deeply concerned about the news of rioting and vandalism against the State institutions in Brasilia. Democratic traditions must be respected by everyone. We extend our full support to the Brazilian authorities. @LulaOficial— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) January 9, 2023“Deeply concerned about the news of rioting and vandalism against the State institutions in Brasilia. Democratic traditions must be respected by everyone. We extend our full support to the Brazilian authorities. @LulaOficial,” PM Modi tweeted on Monday morning.Thousands of demonstrators bypassed security barricades, climbed on roofs, smashed windows and invaded all three buildings, which were believed to be largely vacant and sit on Brasilia’s vast Three Powers Square. In a news conference from Sao Paulo state, Lula said Bolsonaro had encouraged the uprising by those he termed “fascist fanatics,” and he read a freshly signed decree for the federal government to take control of security in the federal district.Police fired tear gas in their efforts to recover the buildings, and were shown on television in the late afternoon marching protesters down a ramp from the presidential palace with their hands secured behind their backs. By early evening, control of the buildings had been reestablished, Justice Minister Flavio Dino said in a press conference that roughly 200 people had been arrested, and officers were firing more tear gas to drive lingering protesters from the area.Meanwhile, US President Joe Biden too condemned the violence and said in his tweet: I condemn the assault on democracy and on the peaceful transfer of power in Brazil. Brazil’s democratic institutions have our full support and the will of the Brazilian people must not be undermined. I look forward to continuing to work with @LulaOficial. I condemn the assault on democracy and on the peaceful transfer of power in Brazil. Brazil’s democratic institutions have our full support and the will of the Brazilian people must not be undermined. I look forward to continuing to work with @LulaOficial.— President Biden (@POTUS) January 8, 2023Antonio Guterres, the United Nations General Secretary urged that the will of people in Brazil be respected and condemned the violence.I condemn today’s assault on Brazil’s democratic institutions. The will of the Brazilian people and the country’s institutions must be respected. I am confident that it will be so. Brazil is a great democratic country.— António Guterres (@antonioguterres) January 8, 2023
Two things became clear in the first week of this year. The BJP is going to use Hindutva as its main weapon in the next general election. And Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo Yatra appears to be causing concern at the highest levels of Narendra Modi’s inner circle. I base this bit of political analysis on a speech that the Home Minister made in Tripura. As reported on the front page of this newspaper last Friday, Amit Shah directed his remarks at ‘Rahul baba’ and said that he should ‘open his ears and listen carefully’ to the announcement that on January 1, 2024, the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya will be ready to welcome worshippers.This revelation was preceded by fulsome praise of Narendra Modi and a short history lesson. “From the time Babur destroyed it and left, from the time the country gained independence, these Congress people got it embroiled in courts – sessions court, High Court, Supreme Court again sessions court. One morning the Supreme Court order came. Modiji performed the ‘bhoomipoojan’ for Ram Lala’s temple and the construction work began.”When the second most powerful politician in India invokes Babur’s name in the same breath as he attacks the Congress Party for not building the temple, it tells us a few things. It tells us that the Ram Temple will open just weeks before the next general election. And making the announcement now means that we can expect a campaign in which temples and Hindutva will be used to deepen the fault lines that exist between Hindus and Muslims. Hindus will be reminded that there are terrible wounds in this country’s past. And Muslims will be reminded that Muslim invaders caused those wounds. Does it also tell us that Hindutva and historical grievances will be used to distract voters from dwelling on unpleasant subjects like high unemployment and high inflation? It is hard to say for sure because the Lok Sabha election is still 16 months away and who knows what changes could happen by then.It intrigued me that for the second time in the past few weeks, senior ministers of the Government of India have spoken directly to Rahul Gandhi. First it was the Health Minister who wrote a letter to him with the warning that unless Covid protocols were followed, the Bharat Jodo Yatra would not be allowed to go forward. To make the warning seem serious, senior BJP leaders appeared in Parliament that day wearing masks. This exercise has now been abandoned. This time it is the Home Minister who is talking directly to ‘Rahul baba’. Why? And why did the Home Minister choose to refer to him in the way in which ayahs address their wards?Could it be because there is growing concern in the highest echelons of the BJP about Rahul emerging as a mature leader who can no longer be mocked and jeered at? It has been a favorite pastime of BJP spokespersons to mock him in primetime TV debates as a man who is too juvenile and too much of a clown to pose any threat to the big leader. But there are signs that they are no longer as sure that their derision is working as well as it did in those pre-Yatra years when Rahul was hard to take seriously because he disappeared so often on mysterious foreign travels. And, because he was given to making muddled speeches about issues that he seemed not to fully understand.His speeches still sound very confused when he speaks on economic issues. He recently said that the only purpose of demonetisation was to take the people’s money and give it to Adani and Ambani. There was a great deal wrong with demonetization even if it was legal (as the Supreme Court has ruled) but it was not done to steal money from ordinary people and give it to the two richest Indians. Clearly, when it comes to economic issues the Dynasty’s heir has much to learn. This does not diminish the astonishing image makeover that Rahul has achieved with his Bharat Jodo Yatra.It is not possible yet to assess if the huge crowds he has drawn on his journey from Kanyakumari will vote for Congress. What it is possible to say is that Rahul’s political messaging has been appreciated even by people who do not count as Congress supporters. What it is possible to say is that Rahul’s personal stature has grown remarkably and there is no question that he has emerged as Modi’s main challenger. When the Home Minister mocks him as ‘Rahul baba’ he appears not to have noticed that the jibe is no longer effective.What it is possible to say is that millions of Indians are sick of religion being dragged into politics as it has been in the past eight years. What it is possible to say is that slowly but surely there is space being made in India’s political landscape for a leader who can pose a challenge to Modi. As someone who once said that the Bharat Jodo Yatra was a waste of time, I admit that I spoke too soon. But it may still prove to be a waste of time if immediate efforts are not made to revive the Congress Party’s crumbling organisational machinery. Unless this happens, Congress will not be able to take on Modi’s electoral juggernaut.
Two things became clear in the first week of this year. The BJP is going to use Hindutva as its main weapon in the next general election. And Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo Yatra appears to be causing concern at the highest levels of Narendra Modi’s inner circle. I base this bit of political analysis on a speech that the Home Minister made in Tripura. As reported on the front page of this newspaper last Friday, Amit Shah directed his remarks at ‘Rahul baba’ and said that he should ‘open his ears and listen carefully’ to the announcement that on January 1, 2024, the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya will be ready to welcome worshippers.This revelation was preceded by fulsome praise of Narendra Modi and a short history lesson. “From the time Babur destroyed it and left, from the time the country gained independence, these Congress people got it embroiled in courts – sessions court, High Court, Supreme Court again sessions court. One morning the Supreme Court order came. Modiji performed the ‘bhoomipoojan’ for Ram Lala’s temple and the construction work began.”When the second most powerful politician in India invokes Babur’s name in the same breath as he attacks the Congress Party for not building the temple, it tells us a few things. It tells us that the Ram Temple will open just weeks before the next general election. And making the announcement now means that we can expect a campaign in which temples and Hindutva will be used to deepen the fault lines that exist between Hindus and Muslims. Hindus will be reminded that there are terrible wounds in this country’s past. And Muslims will be reminded that Muslim invaders caused those wounds. Does it also tell us that Hindutva and historical grievances will be used to distract voters from dwelling on unpleasant subjects like high unemployment and high inflation? It is hard to say for sure because the Lok Sabha election is still 16 months away and who knows what changes could happen by then.It intrigued me that for the second time in the past few weeks, senior ministers of the Government of India have spoken directly to Rahul Gandhi. First it was the Health Minister who wrote a letter to him with the warning that unless Covid protocols were followed, the Bharat Jodo Yatra would not be allowed to go forward. To make the warning seem serious, senior BJP leaders appeared in Parliament that day wearing masks. This exercise has now been abandoned. This time it is the Home Minister who is talking directly to ‘Rahul baba’. Why? And why did the Home Minister choose to refer to him in the way in which ayahs address their wards?Could it be because there is growing concern in the highest echelons of the BJP about Rahul emerging as a mature leader who can no longer be mocked and jeered at? It has been a favorite pastime of BJP spokespersons to mock him in primetime TV debates as a man who is too juvenile and too much of a clown to pose any threat to the big leader. But there are signs that they are no longer as sure that their derision is working as well as it did in those pre-Yatra years when Rahul was hard to take seriously because he disappeared so often on mysterious foreign travels. And, because he was given to making muddled speeches about issues that he seemed not to fully understand.His speeches still sound very confused when he speaks on economic issues. He recently said that the only purpose of demonetisation was to take the people’s money and give it to Adani and Ambani. There was a great deal wrong with demonetization even if it was legal (as the Supreme Court has ruled) but it was not done to steal money from ordinary people and give it to the two richest Indians. Clearly, when it comes to economic issues the Dynasty’s heir has much to learn. This does not diminish the astonishing image makeover that Rahul has achieved with his Bharat Jodo Yatra.It is not possible yet to assess if the huge crowds he has drawn on his journey from Kanyakumari will vote for Congress. What it is possible to say is that Rahul’s political messaging has been appreciated even by people who do not count as Congress supporters. What it is possible to say is that Rahul’s personal stature has grown remarkably and there is no question that he has emerged as Modi’s main challenger. When the Home Minister mocks him as ‘Rahul baba’ he appears not to have noticed that the jibe is no longer effective.What it is possible to say is that millions of Indians are sick of religion being dragged into politics as it has been in the past eight years. What it is possible to say is that slowly but surely there is space being made in India’s political landscape for a leader who can pose a challenge to Modi. As someone who once said that the Bharat Jodo Yatra was a waste of time, I admit that I spoke too soon. But it may still prove to be a waste of time if immediate efforts are not made to revive the Congress Party’s crumbling organisational machinery. Unless this happens, Congress will not be able to take on Modi’s electoral juggernaut.
In a historic post-midnight 15th round of voting, Republican leader Kevin McCarthy on Saturday (January 7) finally became the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives after he successfully persuaded the hard right rebels of his party to support him.In a five-day-long saga, which was the longest speakership election in 160 years, the California Republican made significant concessions to the GOP’s far right, ultimately garnering enough support to win the top job.This wasn’t the first time that a bloc of ultra-conservative Republicans had stood in the way of his becoming Speaker. In 2015, hardline Representatives had forced him to drop out of the race for the speakership as they saw him as power-hungry and too mainstream.Since then, McCarthy, a moderate in the early years of his political career, has bent over backwards to woo the hard right. He befriended those whom he once despised, supported former President Donald Trump, and even helped him spread lies about voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.However, he wasn’t able to win them over until Saturday. Just days before the election, Matt Gaetz, a hard right Republican Representative from Florida and one of McCarthy’s biggest critics, in an op-ed said, “Every single Republican in Congress knows that Kevin does not actually believe anything. He has no ideology.”The Indian Express looks at the tumultuous relationship between McCarthy and hard right members of the Republican party.Pandering to the Tea Party MovementBorn in Bakersfield, California, McCarthy started a sandwich shop after high school with $5,000 that he had won in a lottery. His fate turned around when he was elected to the California State Assembly in 2002. Owing to his affable nature, moderate ideology, and the ability to cut deals with the Democrats, McCarthy quickly became popular and, four years later, won the election to the US House of Representatives.McCarthy’s rise in Washington DC coincided with the rise of the Tea Party Movement, which was a fiscally conservative political movement that began in 2009 within the Republican Party. It consisted of members who believed in fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets. According to a report in the BBC, the defining feature of the movement was its “vociferous anger at Congress and the White House”. Not only this, its members deeply distrusted the government and media.Several reports suggest that McCarthy, along with two other rising stars of the GOP, Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor, saw the opportunity to harness the popularity of the Tea Party Movement and help their party win the House. The New York Times reported that in the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections, the three of them not only projected themselves as an ally of the movement, but also recruited candidates who were anti-establishment and against taxes. The strategy worked, and the Republicans took control of the House. John Boehner was elected Speaker, Cantor became Majority Leader and McCarthy became the House Majority Whip — his job was to gather votes for Boehner and Cantor in order to get legislation passed.This is when McCarthy had his first skirmish with the conservative flank of the Republican party, which he had himself helped grow. Between the end of 2012 and the beginning of 2013, the House needed to pass a bundle of momentous US federal tax increases and spending cuts, failing which the economy would have been in danger of plunging into chaos. However, the newly-elected Tea Party members and ultra-conservative lawmakers opposed a hike in taxes. Although McCarthy voted against the legislation, like the hardliners in the party, as the House Majority Whip, he managed to corral enough votes for it to pass in the lower chamber, according to The NYT report. The ultra-conservatives did not approve — they saw McCarthy as trying “to have it both ways”, The NYT report said.McCarthy’s struggle with the growing conservatism within the Republican party worsened in 2015. By this time, the Freedom Caucus had been established — it emerged from the Tea Party Movement and is considered to be the most conservative, far-right caucus of the GOP — and its members played a significant role in the ouster of then-Speaker Boehner, who deeply frustrated the party’s right flank.McCarthy was the likeliest candidate to become the next Speaker. According to a Reuters report, he “worked hard to build personal bonds with the restive conservatives who worked to topple Boehner”. But his plans did not work out.The Freedom Caucus saw him as pro-establishment and not much different from Boehner. Although McCarthy agreed to a bunch of their demands, he still remained deeply unpopular among them.Meanwhile, the rebellion against him intensified when, just before the election, he made a gaffe on Fox News. In an interview, he suggested that a Republican-appointed special committee on the 2012 Benghazi attacks was intended to undermine Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. McCarthy retracted his statement, but the damage was done. He had to drop out of the race.In a statement, the Republican leader said, “Over the last week it has become clear to me that our conference is deeply divided and needs to unite behind one leader”.A close confidant of TrumpMcCarthy’s bid to lure the hard right for political gains continued as he ardently supported Trump during his presidency.According to an analysis in NPR, the Representative from California “knew Trump — and winning over the hard right, of which he is no founding member — was his path to power.”It was this belief that forced McCarthy to backtrack after he vehemently criticised Trump and held him responsible for the January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol.On the day of the violence, the Republican leader demanded the resignation of the then-President, but when he realised the ultra-conservatives were offended by his statement, he rushed to meet Trump at Mar-a-Lago, Florida, and posed for a photo with him.Subsequently, McCarthy refused to agree to a bipartisan commission to investigate the insurrection. Such a commission would have had an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, with equal authority to subpoena and interrogate witnesses. In fact, McCarthy dismissed the events of January 6, 2021 as not worth investigating.The thorny path to successAfter the Republicans won a thin majority in the House last year, experts predicted that McCarthy’s critics wouldn’t let him realise his dream easily. Therefore, in the run-up to the Speaker vote, the California Republican held weeks-long negotiations with the hardliners of the GOP.He promised to give leadership roles to them, agreed to reform the functioning of the House, and accepted “a rule that would allow five lawmakers to call a snap vote at any time to oust the Speaker”. According to a report in The Washington Post, McCarthy even “made peace” with Jim Jordan, a Republican Representative from Ohio and co-founder of the Freedom Caucus, who opposed his 2015 campaign to become the Speaker.And yet, on December 3, a group of 20 conservative Republicans blocked his ascension — McCarthy couldn’t reach the required 218 vote threshold. For the first time in 100 years, a majority party’s nominee in the House wasn’t able to win the first vote for the position of Speaker.What followed in the next few days was chaos, as the Republican leader failed over and over again to get enough rebels to turn over their votes to him. Instead of backing him, they showed support for other party members, such as Jordan, Paul Gosar, a far-right Republican from Arizona, and Byron Donalds, a Freedom Caucus member and second-term Republican Representative.According to The Washington Post, this led McCarthy to make fresh concessions to the hardliners. Notably, these included an offer to “lower from five to one the number of members required to sponsor a resolution to force a vote on ousting the Speaker”, which he had earlier refused to accept. He also agreed to allow “floor votes to institute term limits on members and to enact specific border policy legislation”, the report added.Finally, on Saturday (January 7), after 15 rounds of voting over the course of five days, McCarthy clawed his way to the speakership. With Republican House members like Eli Crane, Andy Biggs, Bob Good and Matt Rosendale switching their votes to “present”, the candidate prevailed as the final tally showed 216 votes for him — every lawmaker voting “present” lowers the overall tally needed to reach a majority, according to the rules of the House.However, McCarthy’s victory might have come at a heavy cost. According to an analysis in The NYT, he has essentially agreed to allow far-right members to disrupt the working of the House and “hold him hostage to their demands”.It further said, “Congress as an entity would struggle to carry out even its most basic duties in the coming two years, such as funding the government, including the military, or avoiding a catastrophic federal debt default.”
Republican Kevin McCarthy was elected House speaker on a historic post-midnight 15th ballot early Saturday, overcoming holdouts from his own ranks and floor tensions boiling over after a chaotic week that tested the new GOP majority’s ability to govern.After four days of gruelling ballots, McCarthy flipped more than a dozen conservative holdouts to become supporters, including the chairman of the chamber’s Freedom Caucus, leaving him just a few shy of seizing the gavel for the new Congress.“Therefore, the honorable Kevin McCarthy of the state of California, having received a majority of the votes cast, is duly elected Speaker of the House of Representatives.”15th Ballot Result:Kevin McCarthy – 216Hakeem Jeffries – 211Present – 6 #118thCongress pic.twitter.com/m3ksWLVnuf— CSPAN (@cspan) January 7, 2023As the House resumed for the late night session McCarthy had been on the cusp of victory in the 14th round but he fell one vote short.He strode to the back of the chamber to confront Matt Gaetz, sitting with Lauren Boebert and other holdouts. Fingers were pointed, words exchanged and violence apparently just averted.At one point, Republican Mike Rogers of Alabama started to charge toward Gaetz before another Republican, Richard Hudson, physically pulled him back.“Stay civil!” someone shouted.Republicans quickly moved to adjourn, but then McCarthy rushed forward to switch his vote to remain in session as colleagues chanted “One more time!”The few Republican holdouts began voting present as well, dropping the tally he needed to finally seize the gavel in what was heading toward a dramatic finish on the fourth long day of a grueling standoff that has shown the strengths and fragility American democracy.McCarthy had declared to reporters earlier in the day that he believed “we’ll have the votes to finish this once and for all.”
For this year’s Assembly elections in Tripura, the Election Commission has published the final electoral rolls with 28,13,478 voters–a net increase of 2.4 lakh since the 2018 polls.Chief electoral officer Kiran Dinkarrao Gitte said Friday that the final rolls were published Thursday after the summary revision that started on November 9 last year ended.As many as 14,14,576 voters are men and 13,98,825 are women, while there are a record 77 transgender voters. The number of first-time voters is 65,044 and 34,704 of them are men, 30,328 women and 12 transgender people. The number of 80-plus voters is 38,039 while 679 voters are over 100 years old.As many as 13,500 Bru migrants from Mizoram, who are being permanently resettled in parts of Tripura as per a central government initiative to end their protracted displacement, would be able to cast votes in the Assembly elections.Bru migrants who have not enrolled yet can register as voters till the last date for the nomination of candidates, according to the commission.There will be 3,328 polling stations at 2,504 places across the state, with average voters per station this year being 845.The Election Commission is running a special campaign called Mission Zero Violence and 929 to prevent poll violence and ensure free and fair elections. Mission 929 refers to an effort to boost voting percentage. In the 2018 polls, 929 of the 3,214 polling stations had a turnout lower than the state average of 88 per cent.“Poll violence should not happen. These hurt people and affect the image of our state. Elections will end but tourists may not visit again. We are taking a host of initiatives to ensure violence does not happen,” Gitte said.With the ruling BJP and the Opposition parties accusing each other of perpetrating violence, the poll panel has a tough job of ensuring free and fair elections, especially since the Opposition has accused it of having failed to maintain the law and order situation in the previous elections.Fifty new companies of central forces have arrived so far and as many will be arriving on Sunday.As per the Election Commission’s records, 370 FIRs were registered over poll-related violence during the 2018 elections.
MUMBAI: Maharashtra has 9 crore voters according to the final electoral roll published Thursday, ahead of the spate of civic polls expected in state. It is 10.5 lakh lower than in January 2022, but has shown recovery of 4.4 lakh since November 2022, when the last draft was published.Officials say the number of voters has reduced over the past year due to multiple factors, including migration and a major purging of duplicate entries. "We examined 40 lakh duplicate entries, of which 16 lakh were deleted," said the state's chief electoral officer Shrikant Deshpande.Of the total voters, 4.7 crore are men, 4.3 crore women and 4,735 voters are transgender. Nearly 6.7 lakh are people with disabilities. Mumbai has 96.3 lakh voters, of which 71.8 lakh are in the suburbs and 24.4 lakh in the island city.'Poor registration of young voters a matter of concern'In the latest state electoral roll published on Thursday, the 30-39 year age category has the highest number of voters accounting for 2 crore while the 40-49 category follows close behind with 1.9 crore. However, the 18-19 year age group accounts for the lowest number of voters, with just 6.7 lakh, the data shows.Indeed, Deshpande said poor registration among the youth was a matter of concern and that his office had made it a priority to motivate them to register by reaching out to schools and colleges."While the 18-19 year category accounts for 3.5% of the state's population, the number of voters in this age group amounts to only 0.5% of the state's population. This means 90% of them have not registered to vote," said Deshpande.In the 20-29 year age group, the number of voters were also much below the population of the cohort, the data showed. While 20-29-year-olds account for 18% of the state's population, the number of registered voters account for 12.8% of the population. This means 30% of the 20-29 year age group have not registered to vote.Deshpande said the state had accepted 18-year-olds who wanted to register as voters up to January 1, 2023. He said registrations had improved since the last revision of the electoral roll in November 2022. The number of voters in the 18-19 age group was 4.3 lakh in November 2022, accounting for 0.3% of the population. It rose to 6.7 lakh in January 2023 or 0.5% of the population.The chief electoral office in the state will examine 29 lakh voters with duplicate photographs in the next revision of the electoral roll. The updation exercise is conducted through the year. Of the electorate, as many as 43% had Aadhar linkage. Deshpande said the chief electoral office had made efforts to improve registration among nomadic tribes, sex workers and people with disabilities; 6.7 lakh people with disabilities are registered to vote in the state.
Ahead of the coming Assembly elections, the poll season in the Northeast is heating up, with Union Home Minister Amit Shah dropping in for a visit to Tripura and Nagaland this week. Along with Meghalaya, the two states are scheduled to hold elections next month.The high-profile visits, following soon after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s tour of Tripura and Meghalaya last month, signals the BJP’s early push in a region where it now is part of the ruling coalition in most states, in some form or another.In Tripura, Shah flagged off the BJP campaign with a rath yatra, its first for the state, to highlight its government’s achievements, after dislodging the CPI(M) from power after five years.Shah used his speech to make a special mention of the contribution of the Manikya royal dynasty to Tripura – an obvious gesture directed at royal scion Praydut Roy Barman Debbarma, whose TIPRA Motha is among the ruling alliance’s growing worries. The tribal party is rising from strength to strength at a time when the BJP’s tribal ally, IPFT, is beset with problems.The BJP is also fighting fissures at home, having replaced its sitting Chief Minister Biplab Deb overnight with a low-profile Manik Saha, who is having problems pulling his weight.Now, the BJP is facing the prospect of rivals Left and Congress coming together to fight it jointly, which will be a big blow to the party.In Meghalaya, where the BJP is in a ruling coalition with the National People’s Party (NPP), the ties between them are strained. The impression that the BJP is anti-Christian has been hard to shrug off, with misgivings of the community further strengthened after the surfacing of a letter by the Assam Police Special Branch, seeking information from local police stations in BJP-ruled Assam on religious conversions and the number of churches in the state.As the Opposition went to town with the letter, citing it as proof of the BJP’s “anti-Christian” sentiments, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma – the party’s Northeast face — issued a statement distancing himself from the move.The most vocal Opposition party against the BJP in the state is the Trinamool Congress (TMC), a new entrant to the Meghalaya arena. It has a popular leader in the form of former CM and ex-Congress leader Mukul Sangma, who can help the party, especially in his home turf of Garo Hills, which sends as many as 24 MLAs to the 60-member Assembly.The TMC, however, is beleaguered by its own image problem. Many in the state see it as a “Bengali” party, a tag with severe implications in a region long roiled by anti-outsider – specifically anti-Bangladeshi – agitations.In December, West Bengal CM and TMC supremo Mamata Banerjee visited Meghalaya – her first since the party became a force to reckon with in the state. The party is expected to release its list of candidates later this week.The TMC’s rise has been at the cost of the Congress which, once a formidable force in the state, will face polls in Meghalaya this time with zero sitting MLAs. All its 17 MLAs have deserted it, with the last five joining the NPP last year and two more former leaders set to join another regional party, the United Democratic Party.Part of the government despite having only two MLAs, the BJP is lately enjoying a boost, with four prominent MLAs joining it in the last month or so.Nagaland, the other state headed for polls next month in the Northeast, will again see an election in the shadow of the long-awaited final settlement to the Naga political question. It was in hope of this that all parties here had joined hands in 2021 to form an Opposition-less government – the United Democratic Alliance.However, the Naga People’s Front (NPF), which once ruled the state, has announced that it will be contesting the election alone and against the BJP-National Democratic Progressive Party (NDPP), headed by the veteran Neiphiu Rio. Like in 2018, both parties have announced a pre-poll alliance, with the BJP set to contest 20 seats and the NDPP the remaining 40.Before the poll season begins, the ruling government has been served an ultimatum by the Eastern Nagaland Peoples’ Organisation (ENPO), representing the six remote and backward eastern districts of Tuensang, Mon, Longleng, Kiphire, Noklak and Shamator. They have threatened to boycott the elections unless their demand for a separate state called Frontier Nagaland is met.The Nagaland Cabinet earlier this week appealed to the ENPO to reconsider their demand, but the outfit remains steadfast. The ENPO representatives met with Union Home Ministry officials in Guwahati on Thursday. During his visit to Nagaland, Shah too is expected to hold talks with the ENPO.Meanwhile, news agency PTI reported that the Centre Thursday sanctioned Rs 12,882 crore – under the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER) – for continuation of development schemes in the region. The funds were greenlit following a Cabinet meeting chaired by PM Narendra Modi.Minister for DoNER G Kishan Reddy said the development of the Northeast was a “major priority”for the Centre.
Ahead of the coming Assembly elections, the poll season in the Northeast is heating up, with Union Home Minister Amit Shah dropping in for a visit to Tripura and Nagaland this week. Along with Meghalaya, the two states are scheduled to hold elections next month.The high-profile visits, following soon after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s tour of Tripura and Meghalaya last month, signals the BJP’s early push in a region where it now is part of the ruling coalition in all states, in some form or another.In Tripura, Shah flagged off the BJP campaign with a rath yatra, its first for the state, to highlight its government’s achievements, after dislodging the CPI(M) from power after five years.Shah used his speech to make a special mention of the contribution of the Manikya royal dynasty to Tripura – an obvious gesture directed at royal scion Praydut Roy Barman Debbarma, whose TIPRA Motha is among the ruling alliance’s growing worries. The tribal party is rising from strength to strength at a time when the BJP’s tribal ally, IPFT, is beset with problems.The BJP is also fighting fissures at home, having replaced its sitting Chief Minister Biplab Deb overnight with a low-profile Manik Saha, who is having problems pulling his weight.Now, the BJP is facing the prospect of rivals Left and Congress coming together to fight it jointly, which will be a big blow to the party.In Meghalaya, where the BJP is in a ruling coalition with the National People’s Party (NPP), the ties between them are strained. The impression that the BJP is anti-Christian has been hard to shrug off, with misgivings of the community further strengthened after the surfacing of a letter by the Assam Police Special Branch, seeking information from local police stations in BJP-ruled Assam on religious conversions and the number of churches in the state.As the Opposition went to town with the letter, citing it as proof of the BJP’s “anti-Christian” sentiments, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma – the party’s Northeast face — issued a statement distancing himself from the move.The most vocal Opposition party against the BJP in the state is the Trinamool Congress (TMC), a new entrant to the Meghalaya arena. It has a popular leader in the form of former CM and ex-Congress leader Mukul Sangma, who can help the party, especially in his home turf of Garo Hills, which sends as many as 24 MLAs to the 60-member Assembly.The TMC, however, is beleaguered by its own image problem. Many in the state see it as a “Bengali” party, a tag with severe implications in a region long roiled by anti-outsider – specifically anti-Bangladeshi – agitations.In December, West Bengal CM and TMC supremo Mamata Banerjee visited Meghalaya – her first since the party became a force to reckon with in the state. The party is expected to release its list of candidates later this week.The TMC’s rise has been at the cost of the Congress which, once a formidable force in the state, will face polls in Meghalaya this time with zero sitting MLAs. All its 17 MLAs have deserted it, with the last five joining the NPP last year and two more former leaders set to join another regional party, the United Democratic Party.Part of the government despite having only two MLAs, the BJP is lately enjoying a boost, with four prominent MLAs joining it in the last month or so.Nagaland, the other state headed for polls next month in the Northeast, will again see an election in the shadow of the long-awaited final settlement to the Naga political question. It was in hope of this that all parties here had joined hands in 2021 to form an Opposition-less government – the United Democratic Alliance.However, the Naga People’s Front (NPF), which once ruled the state, has announced that it will be contesting the election alone and against the BJP-National Democratic Progressive Party (NDPP), headed by the veteran Neiphiu Rio. Like in 2018, both parties have announced a pre-poll alliance, with the BJP set to contest 20 seats and the NDPP the remaining 40.Before the poll season begins, the ruling government has been served an ultimatum by the Eastern Nagaland Peoples’ Organisation (ENPO), representing the six remote and backward eastern districts of Tuensang, Mon, Longleng, Kiphire, Noklak and Shamator. They have threatened to boycott the elections unless their demand for a separate state called Frontier Nagaland is met.The Nagaland Cabinet earlier this week appealed to the ENPO to reconsider their demand, but the outfit remains steadfast. The ENPO representatives met with Union Home Ministry officials in Guwahati on Thursday. During his visit to Nagaland, Shah too is expected to hold talks with the ENPO.Meanwhile, news agency PTI reported that the Centre Thursday sanctioned Rs 12,882 crore – under the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER) – for continuation of development schemes in the region. The funds were greenlit following a Cabinet meeting chaired by PM Narendra Modi.Minister for DoNER G Kishan Reddy said the development of the Northeast was a “major priority”for the Centre.
Republicans in the House of Representatives failed for a second straight day to elect a leader on Wednesday (January 4), as a faction of holdouts continued to not vote for Kevin Mcarthy (R-CA). In a massive embarrassment for the GOP, this was the time since 1923 that a nominee of the majority party in the House wasn’t able to win the first vote for the position of Speaker.Most of Mcarthy’s opposition from his own party comes from some of the chamber’s most ultra-conservative, hard-right lawmakers. At least 95 per cent are members of the House Freedom Caucus (or were recently endorsed by its campaign arm), according to The New York Times.The Indian Express looks at the Freedom Caucus, the political positions it holds, who its members are, and why it has been opposed to Kevin Mcarthy becoming the House Speaker.The Freedom Caucus is considered to be the most conservative, far-right caucus of the Republican Party in the US House of Representatives. According to the website of its Political Action Committee (PAC) called House Freedom Fund, it “supports candidates for Congress who are dedicated to open, accountable, and limited government.”The caucus has roughly 30 members (more than the number voting against Mcarthy) and a long term goal to drag the Republican Party – and indeed American politics – further to the right. It was formed in 2015 out of general frustration that certain lawmakers shared about the GOP establishment. “That was the first time we got together and decided we were a group, and not just a bunch of pissed-off guys,” said founding member Mick Mulvaney.It emerged from the Tea Party Movement, a fiscally conservative political movement within the Republican Party that began in 2009. Members of this movement called for lower taxes and for a reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit through decreased government spending. The Freedom Caucus was a “smaller, more cohesive, more agile and more active” group of conservative representatives, according to its leader Jim Jordan.But as the speaker election fiasco has shown, the term “fringe” may not truly reflect the power the caucus holds on the Republican Party. As political scientist Daniel Ziblatt wrote in Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracies, the Republican Party has become increasingly more accepting of “ferocious right-wing populist politics, which threatens to swallow older, self-identified conservative political parties.”While it will be incorrect to view the House Freedom Caucus as a monolith, by and large, its positions can be characterised as being fiscally conservative and right wing populist. In the past, the group has tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act multiple times – in general, it is in favour of budget cuts, lower taxes and decentralisation of government powers. The caucus also stands against immigration and has been called by many observers as “nativist”, “anti-globalist”, and “white supremacist.”In 2016, the Freedom Caucus put all its strength behind Donald Trump as he campaigned to a seemingly improbable victory in the Presidential elections. In its unwavering loyalty to Trump the Freedom Caucus came to be described as “more populist and nationalist, but less bound by policy principles,” wrote Politico.Nearly all of the lawmakers who voted against McCarthy made statements casting doubts on the 2020 election. Fourteen of the 15 incumbents who voted against McCarthy were among the 139 House Republicans who, on Jan. 6, 2021, voted to overturn the 2020 Electoral College results. “Trump wants to turn Washington upside down – that was his first message and his winning message. We want the exact same thing,” said Mulvaney upon Trump’s election in 2016.However, despite Donald Trump’s own closeness with Kevin Mcarthy and his open support for him as the Speaker candidate, many in the Freedom Caucus have still refused to back him.To be clear, not every member of the Freedom Caucus has opposed Kevin Mcarthy. Major names in the Freedom Caucus such as Jim Jordan and Marjorie Taylor Greene have voted for Mcarthy. However 19 of the 20 GOP members who have voted for other candidates (so far), are from the Freedom Caucus. Dubbed the “Never Kevin” crew by US media, these far right holdouts suggest that “McCarthy is too closely aligned with a broken system and will do little to change how Washington is governed” , said the BBC.Andy Biggs, one of the prominent holdouts who has launched a longshot bid for Speakership himself, took to Twitter to say, “The American people want us to turn a page. They do not want excuses or performance art, they want action and results.” The holdouts have also sought to extract various concessions in exchange for their support, including promises to vote on bills that address congressional term limits and border security, and changes to the procedure by which to oust a sitting speaker.This is not the first that the Freedom Caucus has disrupted Speakership bids of GOP candidates. Back in 2015, Paul Ryan became Speaker when the Freedom Caucus made it clear that its members wouldn’t support Kevin McCarthy’s bid. This happened after The Freedom Caucus essentially forced the Republican speaker of the House, John Boehner, to resign in 2015 because its members felt “he wasn’t forceful enough against Obama”, wrote The New York Times.As the Republican establishment has stayed silent amidst the growing right wing surge within the party, groups such as the Freedom Caucus have been more emboldened than ever. For many, they do not even represent cogent and coherent political positions. Rather, they ostensibly stand against the “establishment” – a term used by its members for any lawmaker who calls out their antics. And they want to “burn it all down,” bringing radical change to how Washington works.According to the New York Times, they want “more headlines, more airtime, more spectacle and … more power. They aren’t interested in governing, but rather in teasing the growing urge among the Republican base to throw a wrench in the gears.”
Republicans in the House of Representatives failed for a second straight day to elect a leader on Wednesday (January 4), as a faction of holdouts continued to not vote for Kevin Mcarthy (R-CA). In a massive embarrassment for the GOP, this was the time since 1923 that a nominee of the majority party in the House wasn’t able to win the first vote for the position of Speaker.Most of Mcarthy’s opposition from his own party comes from some of the chamber’s most ultra-conservative, hard-right lawmakers. At least 95 per cent are members of the House Freedom Caucus (or were recently endorsed by its campaign arm), according to The New York Times.The Indian Express looks at the Freedom Caucus, the political positions it holds, who its members are, and why it has been opposed to Kevin Mcarthy becoming the House Speaker.The Freedom Caucus is considered to be the most conservative, far-right caucus of the Republican Party in the US House of Representatives. According to the website of its Political Action Committee (PAC) called House Freedom Fund, it “supports candidates for Congress who are dedicated to open, accountable, and limited government.”The caucus has roughly 30 members (more than the number voting against Mcarthy) and a long term goal to drag the Republican Party – and indeed American politics – further to the right. It was formed in 2015 out of general frustration that certain lawmakers shared about the GOP establishment. “That was the first time we got together and decided we were a group, and not just a bunch of pissed-off guys,” said founding member Mick Mulvaney.It emerged from the Tea Party Movement, a fiscally conservative political movement within the Republican Party that began in 2009. Members of this movement called for lower taxes and for a reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit through decreased government spending. The Freedom Caucus was a “smaller, more cohesive, more agile and more active” group of conservative representatives, according to its leader Jim Jordan.But as the speaker election fiasco has shown, the term “fringe” may not truly reflect the power the caucus holds on the Republican Party. As political scientist Daniel Ziblatt wrote in Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracies, the Republican Party has become increasingly more accepting of “ferocious right-wing populist politics, which threatens to swallow older, self-identified conservative political parties.”While it will be incorrect to view the House Freedom Caucus as a monolith, by and large, its positions can be characterised as being fiscally conservative and right wing populist. In the past, the group has tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act multiple times – in general, it is in favour of budget cuts, lower taxes and decentralisation of government powers. The caucus also stands against immigration and has been called by many observers as “nativist”, “anti-globalist”, and “white supremacist.”In 2016, the Freedom Caucus put all its strength behind Donald Trump as he campaigned to a seemingly improbable victory in the Presidential elections. In its unwavering loyalty to Trump the Freedom Caucus came to be described as “more populist and nationalist, but less bound by policy principles,” wrote Politico.Nearly all of the lawmakers who voted against McCarthy made statements casting doubts on the 2020 election. Fourteen of the 15 incumbents who voted against McCarthy were among the 139 House Republicans who, on Jan. 6, 2021, voted to overturn the 2020 Electoral College results. “Trump wants to turn Washington upside down – that was his first message and his winning message. We want the exact same thing,” said Mulvaney upon Trump’s election in 2016.However, despite Donald Trump’s own closeness with Kevin Mcarthy and his open support for him as the Speaker candidate, many in the Freedom Caucus have still refused to back him.To be clear, not every member of the Freedom Caucus has opposed Kevin Mcarthy. Major names in the Freedom Caucus such as Jim Jordan and Marjorie Taylor Greene have voted for Mcarthy. However 19 of the 20 GOP members who have voted for other candidates (so far), are from the Freedom Caucus. Dubbed the “Never Kevin” crew by US media, these far right holdouts suggest that “McCarthy is too closely aligned with a broken system and will do little to change how Washington is governed” , said the BBC.Andy Biggs, one of the prominent holdouts who has launched a longshot bid for Speakership himself, took to Twitter to say, “The American people want us to turn a page. They do not want excuses or performance art, they want action and results.” The holdouts have also sought to extract various concessions in exchange for their support, including promises to vote on bills that address congressional term limits and border security, and changes to the procedure by which to oust a sitting speaker.This is not the first that the Freedom Caucus has disrupted Speakership bids of GOP candidates. Back in 2015, Paul Ryan became Speaker when the Freedom Caucus made it clear that its members wouldn’t support Kevin McCarthy’s bid. This happened after The Freedom Caucus essentially forced the Republican speaker of the House, John Boehner, to resign in 2015 because its members felt “he wasn’t forceful enough against Obama”, wrote The New York Times.As the Republican establishment has stayed silent amidst the growing right wing surge within the party, groups such as the Freedom Caucus have been more emboldened than ever. For many, they do not even represent cogent and coherent political positions. Rather, they ostensibly stand against the “establishment” – a term used by its members for any lawmaker who calls out their antics. And they want to “burn it all down,” bringing radical change to how Washington works.According to the New York Times, they want “more headlines, more airtime, more spectacle and … more power. They aren’t interested in governing, but rather in teasing the growing urge among the Republican base to throw a wrench in the gears.”
