We Should Make It Harder to Remove a Speaker, but We Shouldn’t Punish Those Who Try

There is an ongoing battle within the House Republican Conference over proposed rule changes, highlighting a troubling trend: some Republicans seem intent on enforcing loyalty through punitive measures, rather than fostering genuine unity through accountability and shared purpose. 

At the center of this debate is the question of whether Speaker Mike Johnson can hold his caucus together without wielding a punitive hammer. The answer should be a resounding “yes”—and Republicans should abandon the misguided notion that they can discipline members into compliance.

In the recent negotiations, hard-line conservatives struck a tentative deal with the House GOP establishment, agreeing to raise the threshold for a “motion to vacate” (the procedure that allows members to force a vote on ousting the Speaker) from one member to nine members. In return, the faction pushing for tougher “accountability” rules—rules that would penalize members for dissenting from the party line—agreed to back off their demands. 

This was a compromise to stabilize the chamber and avoid the dysfunction that plagued the last Congress, but the very fact that these punitive proposals were on the table at all should give us pause.

Punitive Rules Won’t Create Real Unity

There’s a dangerous assumption underpinning these proposed rules: that Republicans can create unity through coercion. Suggestions like stripping committee assignments from members who vote against party-backed procedural rules or support a motion to vacate would punish lawmakers for representing their constituents as they see fit. Such penalties wouldn’t encourage genuine consensus; they’d simply create resentment and fracture within the party, undermining the very goals Republicans are trying to achieve.

The irony here is that many of the members pushing for these punitive rules claim to support conservative principles of limited government and individual responsibility. Yet, these proposals represent a top-down, almost authoritarian approach that stifles debate and discourages dissent—the very antithesis of conservatism. Conservatives have long argued that power should be decentralized and that individuals should be accountable to their constituents, not to party enforcers.

Republican Leadership Should Lead, Not Control

Speaker Johnson has wisely distanced himself from these proposals, recognizing that heavy-handed rule changes would only serve to deepen divisions in the House. Johnson himself noted that he doesn’t support “punitive measures and rules.” 

That’s the right instinct, and it’s refreshing to see a Republican leader who isn’t tempted by the easy path of enforcing obedience. Instead, Johnson seems to understand that his job is to unify his caucus by building trust, not by imposing fear.

In a democracy, and especially within a political party, leaders should bring people together through persuasion, not coercion. Instead of threatening to strip members of committee assignments or penalize them for speaking their minds, Speaker Johnson and the Republican leadership should focus on building consensus through dialogue and compromise. 

The Republican Party, of all organizations, should understand the value of allowing members to vote according to their principles, even when it means breaking from the party line. After all, if we can’t allow for genuine debate within our ranks, how can we claim to stand for the free exchange of ideas?

Dissent Is Not Disloyalty

Punishing members for voting their conscience—especially on procedural matters—sends the wrong message to the American people. Voters elected their representatives to make independent judgments, not to be rubber stamps for party leadership. The moment we begin penalizing members for representing their districts, we lose sight of our mission to serve the American people, not just the party apparatus.

Moreover, such punishments would have unintended consequences. Take the proposal from Rep. Bill Huizenga, which would remove committee assignments from members who defy the party on procedural votes. 

Procedural votes are often complex, involving layers of strategic consideration. Not every vote against the rule is a direct attack on party unity—sometimes it’s a principled stand on issues that matter deeply to a member’s district. Penalizing members for such votes would only increase division within the party and make it harder to govern effectively.

Avoiding Another McCarthy-Style Ouster

The specter of Kevin McCarthy’s historic ouster looms large over these discussions. But instead of addressing the root causes of McCarthy’s downfall—like the lack of trust and transparent communication within the caucus—some Republicans seem intent on simply raising the barriers to accountability. McCarthy made his bed – trading away his safety net for the reins of power. But in the process, he made it all to easy to lose everything, and that’s exactly what happened. 

Increasing the threshold for a motion to vacate may prevent an unexpected Speaker ouster, but it won’t fix the underlying tensions that led to McCarthy’s removal. In fact, implementing punitive measures could make things worse, by fueling resentment and emboldening factions within the party.

If Republicans want to avoid another chaotic Speaker battle, they need to focus on fostering real accountability and trust among members. The solution isn’t to create draconian rules to keep everyone in line. It’s to ensure that members feel heard and valued—that they see themselves as partners in advancing conservative goals, not just cogs in a party machine.

A Recipe for Dysfunction

These proposed rule changes are a recipe for dysfunction at a time when Republicans can least afford it. With a razor-thin majority, the GOP needs every vote it can get to pass legislation and support the incoming Trump administration’s agenda. Alienating members by stripping their committee assignments or marginalizing them for taking principled stands would only erode the fragile unity that Republicans need to govern effectively. 

Instead of punishing members for dissent, the party should embrace a culture of open dialogue and mutual respect.

In his efforts to secure the gavel, Johnson seems to have reached a compromise that puts punitive measures on the back burner, at least for now. That’s a step in the right direction, but the fact that these proposals made it this far is a reminder of the troubling trends within the GOP. Some Republicans seem more interested in enforcing ideological purity than in building a coalition capable of governing. 

If Republicans truly want to demonstrate their readiness to lead, they need to abandon this instinct for punitive rule-making and focus on winning hearts and minds.

Republicans Must Reject Rule Changes That Stifle Independence

The House Republican Conference has a choice to make. It can either double down on these punitive rules, alienating members and stifling independent voices, or it can pursue a path of genuine unity and accountability. Speaker Mike Johnson has shown encouraging signs that he favors the latter approach. But he must be vigilant, and Republicans should resist the temptation to discipline their way into unity.

In the coming Congress, Republicans should be focused on delivering for the American people, not on policing each other’s votes. By rejecting these divisive rule changes, the GOP can strengthen its own ranks and better serve the public. True unity will come not from enforcing party discipline but from fostering an environment where every member has a stake in the mission.

If Republicans want to prove they deserve the majority, they must reject punitive rule-making and embrace the diversity of voices within their party. Only then will they be able to govern effectively—and only then will they be able to claim the mantle of a party that truly values freedom and accountability.

This post was originally published on this site