some thoughts about the House Freedom Caucus

Here in Western North Carolina, we have the dubious distinction of having the Right Reprehensible Mark Meadows (R-Anarchy) as our House member.

Meadows is a pivotal member of the House Freedom Caucus, which has some interesting ideas.

Interesting, that is, if you are an academic whose field of study encompasses the way political parties can fall apart. For the rest of us, this is a terrifying exercise in reality, brought to us by a caucus that denies reality.

The Freedom Caucus is free, all right. Free from wisdom, free from the understanding of history, free from the desire to govern effectively, free from worries about the majority of Americans.

They are also largely free from accountability thanks to a synergistic stew of GOP-engineered gerrymandering and the Citizens United decision.

On one subject, I do agree with that odious Caucus: John Boehner had to go.

I suspect we disagree again once the prospect of filling the Speakership role is addressed. I would like to see Nancy Pelosi holding the gavel again, but the Freedom Caucus surely disagrees.

Pelosi, after all, is sane, and sanity just doesn't fly in the Freedom Caucus.

Paul Ryan has denied three times that he will accept the job (Biblical foreshadowing?), saying that he does not want to spend as much time away from his young family as would be required if he became Speaker. That I can accept and respect. On the other hand, also he says that he likes his job on the House Ways and Means Committee and believes that he is doing good there. I really don't think he's been doing very well heading the Ways and Means Committee; his budgets always suck (I think that's the technical term), and whether or not he likes the job, it may not be the one he should have.

[Ed. note: I corrected the name of Paul Ryan's committee on 2015-10-10.]