A few thoughts on what the Freedom Caucus has wrought....
The intellectual backbone of the House Freedom Caucus (at both a staff and member level) comes from Senate refugees, in particular associates of former Senator Jim DeMint.
When you hear 'we want more debate and more amendments' in the House, that is these folks wanting the House to be more like the Senate -- less leadership driven, more freewheeling, more debate and empowerment of the rank-and-file.
And that will, supposedly, lead to more conservative outcome, or so goes the theory.
When you see Republican members 'voting against a rule,' that is the equivalent of voting against cloture on the motion to proceed in the Senate. The Senate 'nay' is because of a perceived lack of debate/amendments.
The desire to shut down the process with a 'nay' on a rules vote stems from the conclusion that there has not been enough debate/process/amendment. But with the Senate, it is typically a vote by the minority against the majority. Here it is the majority against itself.
So the thought leaders standing behind the Freedom Caucus (or in some cases within it), effectively want the House to be more like the Senate.
So what have they wrought?
The House is now a body that cannot function or pass anything without minority party participation in lawmaking. Just like the Senate. You effectively need a bipartisan supermajority to pass anything of consequence.
So they have succeeded in making the House look more like the Senate. But remember where this all started. They believed that this process would lead to more conservative lawmaking. In reality, it has led to less.
A conservative majority can't function.
https://x.com/VolbeckWasRight/status...10306460807230
Not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree. Bunch of dumb congress critters.