It’s been said that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, and that truth is often in the eye of the beholder. Such is the case with one Thomas Massie, a Republican congressman from Kentucky. As a consistent thorn in the side of his own party, particularly President Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA), Massie is alternately labeled as deeply principled and deliberately obstructive. Which is it, and who is this guy?
Massie was first elected to Congress in 2012 as a fiscal hawk above all else. So, you might ask, what’s the problem with seeking to reduce federal spending and the size of government? These are broad strokes heavily supported by rank-and-file Republicans. And when your party is either out of power or holds a comfortable majority, few will take note of the position held by one out of 435 members of the House. But just how far will you go to buck your party when literally every vote is crucial to electing a leader or passing legislation supported by the overwhelming majority of your party? Put another way, how do you balance an unwavering commitment to your principles with the need to be a team player instead of a lone wolf?
Indeed, if the GOP held just a few more seats in the lower chamber and enjoyed a more comfortable majority as it does in the upper chamber, few outside of his district would know or care much about Rep. Massie. But Republican control of the House is so tenuous that it cannot afford to lose more than one vote in its caucus in order to pass the president’s budget resolution or elect a Speaker of the House. And in both cases, Massie was that one vote. A small handful of other hardcore conservatives originally joined the Kentucky representative in opposing the re-election of Speaker Johnson and the president’s budget resolution. All of them were ultimately talked out of their opposition by President Trump – except Thomas Massie. Was Massie merely interested in the power that comes with a pivotal vote rarely held by a single member of the House?
Politicians are famous for, shall we say, adjusting their policy positions to suit their constituents or purely for posturing. The others who went on record opposing Speaker Johnson used relatively guarded language, allowing for the possibility of changing their minds. But Massie left himself exactly zero wiggle room when, one day before the vote for Speaker, he declared, “You can pull all my fingernails out, you can shove bamboo up in them, you can start cutting off my fingers, I am not voting for Mike Johnson tomorrow, and you can take that to the bank.” That is what you call unambiguous. Yet Massie proposed no genuine alternative. No one had come forward to challenge Speaker Johnson, so Massie’s vote appeared to be pure obstruction, creating a problem for which he proposed no solution.
Liberty Nation depends on the support of our readers. Donate now!
As Kentucky’s Louisville Courier Journal observed in an article titled, “Thomas Massie is even more marginalized after losing House speaker fight,” the guy is relentless when it comes to alienating those who are supposed to be his friends and leaving everyone around him asking, “What does he think he’s doing?”
And yet, Massie is reportedly giving serious consideration to seeking the Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Mitch McConnell. But if he does, he will run into opposition on several fronts. He has been accused of anti-Semitism due to his virulent resistance to support for Israel. “If Tom Massie chooses to enter the race for US Senate in Kentucky, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) campaign budget to ensure he is defeated will be unlimited,” RJC CEO Matt Brooks, who has repeatedly condemned Massie, said in a statement to Jewish Insider.
On the matter of being the single GOP dissenting vote on the recent budget resolution, Massie explained: “We have no plan whatsoever to balance the budget other than growth, but what they’re proposing is to make the deficit worse,” according to USA Today. Would Massie have held to his position if his single vote made the difference between success and failure for his party?
When it comes to politics, as in life, the perfect is often the enemy of the good. No elected official ever gets absolutely everything he desires in a piece of legislation. The US Constitution is fundamentally based on balance and compromise – between the three branches of government, opposing political parties, and internal disagreements within those parties. The question is never whether any bill or leader is perfect, but always, will the country be better off if a specific piece of legislation is passed? Is half a loaf better than none?
For example, Republicans would have loved to cut taxes even more than they did during Trump’s first term, but they settled for a level that enough of their members and the public would support to assure passage. Likewise, if he had gotten his way, President Barack Obama would likely have favored a single-payer healthcare system, but in bowing to political reality, he settled for the compromise we now call Obamacare.
A prime example of a lone warrior costing his party dearly was the late GOP Sen. John McCain, who in 2017 stood to be the decisive vote for repealing Obamacare. Apparently driven by his transparent hatred of Donald Trump, McCain voted against the bill, saving the system put in place by the man who defeated him in the 2008 election. Opposing the good because it was not perfect, McCain explained, “I have believed that Obamacare should be repealed and replaced with a solution that increases competition, lowers costs, and improves care for the American people. The so-called ‘skinny repeal’ amendment the Senate voted on today would not accomplish those goals. While the amendment would have repealed some of Obamacare’s most burdensome regulations, it offered no replacement.” We thus have the late Arizona senator to thank for a healthcare system that became all but permanent.
Especially when Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was heading the congressional wing of their party, Democrats were famously kept in line, standing together at every turn. Whether that is a good or bad thing depends on your ideological perspective. One way or another, today’s congressional Republicans are just getting started in implementing the legislative side of the president’s far-reaching agenda. And while their razor-thin majority will grow when vacancies created by two former members who joined the Trump cabinet will likely be filled by other Republicans in the near future, their governing majority will continue to be fragile at best. When it comes down to another vote on a crucial issue, one that may depend on his support, will Rep. Massie continue to be a lone voice in the wilderness, or will he be a team player?