Congress

Jim Jordan Says He's Running for Speaker of the House

The Ohio Republican is running despite allegations that he ignored sexual abuse claims as an assistant coach at Ohio State.

|

Ronald M. Sachs/CNP / Polaris/Newscom

Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio), co-founder of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said today he intends to run for speaker of the House.

The Daily Caller was the first to report on Jordan's plans, and Jordan himself quickly confirmed the news. If Republicans maintain their House majority in the 2018 midterms, he will seek to replace current House Speaker Paul Ryan (R–Wis.), who is leaving Congress once his term is up at the end of the year.

The Ohio Republican's announcement could set up a battle between the establishment and conservative wings of the Republican Party. On the establishment side, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) said yesterday he wants the next speaker "to be me," although his aides later clarified that he was simply emphasizing the need for Republicans to keep control of the House.

Regardless, McCarthy is rumored to be interested in the job, and he has already received Ryan's support. There's also been speculation that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R–La.) wants to be speaker, although he too has endorsed McCarthy.

Jordan has received the backing of Fox News host Sean Hannity and conservative groups such as Tea Party Patriots and FreedomWorks. But his run for the speakership won't come without controversy, as he's been accused of ignoring allegations of sexual abuse made by Ohio State wrestlers back when he was an assistant coach at the school. Jordan has denied that he knew any sexual abuse was going on.

While Jordan's candidacy may seem like a win for freedom-loving libertarians, his association with the House Freedom Caucus might not be such a great thing after all. As Reason's Matt Welch notes, Jordan and many of the other so-called "constitutional conservatives" in the Freedom Caucus have lost interest in holding President Donald Trump accountable, particularly in matters related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe. Welch says:

By crying wolf over a never-ending series of Mueller-related scandals and document reveals that fizzled on the launching pad—most notably, the long-awaited February memo from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R–Calif.) showing the investigative origins of the Russia probe—Trump's apologists are training Americans to tune out even those critiques that have some merit, such as evidence of dishonest leakage from the likes of former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

By looking more like partisan hacks than constitutional stalwarts, Republicans give a disgruntled populace even less reason to vote for them, potentially jeopardizing their majorities in both the House and the Senate, where any future impeachment trial would take place.

Jordan and his Freedom Caucus colleagues claim to be all about government accountability, but in this case they're failing badly. And if Jordan becomes speaker, things might get worse.

NEXT: Body Cam Shows Chicago Police Officer Shooting a Man in the Back

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Maybe Trump and Pence promoted his candidacy as insurance against impeachment, since IIRC the Speaker becomes President of the Pres and Vice Pres leave office.

    1. Even in the event of Trump getting impeached and removed, I think Pence getting impeached and removed too is highly unlikely.

      1. You mean, they don’t all just go away?*

        *average crying democrat

  2. The Ohio Republican’s announcement could set up a battle between the establishment and conservative wings of the Republican Party.

    Which side is Trump on?

    1. Duh, he’s on Trump’s side.

    2. Whoever tweets “TRUMP is the BESTEST POTUS, EVAH!!! ” the most.

  3. “By looking more like partisan hacks than constitutional stalwarts”

    Are we sure that congressman providing oversight of an executive agency are the “hacks” in this situation?

  4. The Ohio Republican’s announcement could set up a battle between the establishment and conservative wings of the Republican Party.

    So who will be representing the conservative wing of the party? And how far would a conservative hope to get with Trump firmly in control of the GOP?

    1. (1) There are no conservatives anymore and (2) they few that are left will go nowhere with Trump in charge

      1. (2) they few that are left will go nowhere with Trump in charge

        Rand seems to be playing well with Trump. Like to see something substantial come out of that but they seem to have a good working relationship. Mike Lee was also on the short list for the Kennedy vacancy.

        1. The Senate may be a different animal, because each Senator has power. Within the House, coalitions are the most important

          1. True enough but have individual House members (outside Leadership positions) ever had much power? I can’t remember any.

            1. Never. That’s why the few conservatives that remain in the House will never go anywhere

              1. Libertarians rejoice when conservatives falter.

  5. If Republicans maintain their House majority in the 2018 midterms

    Not. Gonna. Happen.

    #BlueWave

    1. #libertariansforOcasio-Cortez

      1. You laugh, but there is an openly embraced “Libertarian Socialist” caucus within the Libertarian Party now

        1. “Libertarian” Party

        2. There has been an openly embraced “Libertarian Republican” caucus both within and without the LP for decades.

        3. …and they hold themselves obligated to bake cakes for anyone.

          1. That was supposed to be a punch line about the Libertarian Socialist caucus, but it might work for the Libertarian Republican caucus too.

          2. Say what you will about Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess, but at least when they allied with socialists it was due to a shared belief in opposing the Vietnam War and the draft. Now it’s more about emphasizing “we’re not conservative” (or individualists, apparently)

        4. Libertarian Socialism has been a thing for at least 150 years. It’s not some new phenomenon.

          1. I am aware. You should stipulate that it has been a thing in Europe for at least 150 years. I’m not impressed with Proudhon’s “Property is Theft” and I doubt most would be outside of the socialist Left

            1. The only “brand” of socialism that I can somewhat sympathize with is anarcho-syndicalism. At the very least they emphasize anti-statism and have an alternative vision of a society without government, rather than including some intermediary stage of a “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Plus, the Industrial Workers of the World (anarcho-syndicalist labor union in the US) was instrumental in securing important free speech victories in the early 20th century

            2. Did you actually read it?

              1. Because most libertarians are woefully unaware of the left-anarchist arguments against private property and come across as fools when debating theories of property with them.

                1. Yeah, I don’t disagree with that. I’m sure I’m not the best versed on the topic, but I have read a fair amount of the writings

              2. Yes. And it’s worse than Georgism. Although, I have no problem with Georgists, because they have some fair arguments. The world would have been a lot better off if the Georgists and Distributists won over the radicals rather than the various brands of socialism.

                1. Where’s Eddy to post a Chesterton quote about Distributism? You’re slacking, man

                  1. “Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of ‘touching’ a man’s heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it.” ? Charles II, Twelve Types

                    “This applies double on the Internet” – Father Brown and the Mystery of the Terrible Troll

                    1. Oh man, Father Brown has entered the 21st Century

                    2. Chesterton in the modern age would be a sad thing indeed.

            3. I’m not either. I think he goes too far in declaring property to be theft.

              1. I don’t agree with Proudhon either, but he wasn’t really saying that all property is theft, was he? After all, he wore clothes, didn’t he?

                1. Well, yeah, that’s always the line of distinction drawn.

                  The funniest left-anarchist “book” that I’ve ever read was “God and the State” by Bakunin. It was never really finished, because Bakunin never finished any of his writings, but the whole writing is littered with a series of name dropping.

                  The main thesis of the “book” could basically be summarized as “scientific socialism is stupid and is a religion in and of itself and Bakunin knew a shit ton of important 19th Century radicals, so deal with it”.

                  1. I haven’t read much, but I thought The Ego And Its Own by Max Stirner was somewhat interesting. It seems to have become associated with certain Left Anarchist types.

                    1. I never read Stirner. I did read a letter that Engels once wrote where he described Stirner and his thinking. I also know that Lysander Spooner was into him.

                      I’ll have to read it after I work my way through some more Distributist writings. Those Catholics are long-winded.

          2. IMO the difference between Libertarian Capitalism and Libertarian Socialism is how far you want to take your anti-authoritarian ethos.

            Libertarian Capitalists will find peace with authoritarian institutions as long as they are voluntarily agreed to. The state by its nature is not voluntary so it is the biggest authoritarian entity that must be restrained.

            Libertarian Socialists will go further and say that even associations with authoritarian institutions that are voluntarily agreed to should be regarded suspiciously. They would view a “voluntary” agreement for an individual to sell labor to a large company to be not all that voluntary since there is a tremendous power differential between the two negotiating parties. Because of that, the laborer has to accept terms that he/she otherwise might not accept were he/she to be on a more equal footing with the company.

            I understand the critique but I don’t agree with it, because I don’t believe it is my place, nor the place of any third party, to dictate to anyone what terms he/she must or must not be willing to accept in an agreement that is freely entered in to by both parties.

            So if you view libertarian socialism as being further along the spectrum of anti-authoritarianism, it isn’t all that difficult of a stretch.

            1. That’s fair. I don’t agree and I’m sorry if I come off as dismissive, but I think property and voluntary associations are essential for liberty and essential to restraining the state that holds the monopoly on force.

              I will concede that libertarian socialists are preferable to the various tendencies of Marxism.

              1. Sorry if I offended you with the razing about “I thought you said we should listen to the socialists”. I am an asshole

              2. I think my inherent conservatism comes out in a lot of debates like this. I think I have an ideal libertarian system, but will it work? That I do not know. And so it’s why I strongly believe in gradual movement towards a freer system. Piece by piece. Let us keep moving in that direction and get an idea when things become too anarchistic.

                I think it’s probably much further than many people believe though.

                1. I am more of a radical in that I believe we should be arguing for an ideal society or as close to that as we can. This is so that we have a clear goal and direction in mind. Of course we might never get there and we will change gradually, in small steps. But with a vision in mind, we will be going in the best direction,and I feel this is important.

                  Damnit, I got masago all over my keyboard.

                  1. Damnit, I got masago all over my keyboard.

                    That’s a super lame euphemism, bro.

            2. Libertarian Socialists will go further and say that even associations with authoritarian institutions that are voluntarily agreed to should be regarded suspiciously.

              This suspicion is something that all libertarians could use a little more of. This is, I think, maybe the Randian influence to put moral coloring to the success of large industry. When I think it is far more neutral. The power differential should always be in people’s minds. Though I’m always curious how much of truly big business comes from government giving special treatment to certain parties. Certainly it seems that every truly large business has a lot of connection with government. And I don’t have to explain to anyone here the power that regulation has for continuing entrenched interests.

              I understand the critique but I don’t agree with it, because I don’t believe it is my place, nor the place of any third party, to dictate to anyone what terms he/she must or must not be willing to accept in an agreement that is freely entered in to by both parties.

              Yes, and also because the leap requires you to take power away from the individual. I think it’s good to be aware of the power differences that exist, but at the point that you say an individual should not do something because of it, you take power away from them. And I believe that this is immoral.

              That being said, let’s be clear I don’t know the works of the people you’re referring to, so I’m just bouncing off your post.

              1. This is one of the problems I have with Walter Block. He is always criticizing anti-authoritarianism as not necessary for libertarianism. I disagree. He says things like “well, when you go to the doctor, aren’t you submitting to the doctor’s authority in the field of medicine?” Two problems with this. First, the argument is not necessarily against all forms of authority, but only against social authority (which of course includes political authority). Second, no, you shouldn’t blindly trust your doctor. I know quite a few people that got screwed over by that kind of an attitude. No, you should think for yourself, even when it comes to your doctor, and independently verify his claims as much as you are able. So “think for yourself,” or “don’t blindly trust authority,” should be something that should be encouraged by libertarians for themselves or for others. Is it a necessary condition for being a libertarian, though? I don’t think it is an either-or question. I would put it in the “highly recommended” category.

                1. I asked you a while back what your main contention was with Walter Block and you never said. You probably didn’t see the comment.

                  1. Walter Block sure beat the shit out of the Jacket in a November 2016 debate. Wow, he just mopped the floor with Gillespie’s guts.

                  2. Sorry, I didn’t see the comment. My main problem with Walter Block was his whole Libertarians for Trump episode, which I thought was plain dumb. It is one thing to say Trump is better than Hillary, and it is an entirely different thing to go out of your way to start a whole group to support Trump and to drag the libertarian brand into the mud. With that said, I have a lot of respect for Walter and he has be crucial to my libertarian education. I am especially thankful to him for developing evictionism, which seems like the right answer to me with respect to the abortion issue (with slight modifications).

                    1. Yeah, I agree with that criticism.

                    2. Yes, I do not see Trump as particularly libertarian in any way. I truly believe that libertarianism, like any political belief, comes from philosophy. And the “why” of some action, is required for an action to be considered libertarian. I see almost no libertarianism in Trump’s why.

                      That being said, sometimes he does things I like, and I am happy then. Sometimes he does things with which I disagree. He does not have to be libertarian to do things I agree with.

                    3. In Block’s defense, BUCS, he and the Mises people are centrally fixated on foreign interventionism. That would explain some of their members allying with the Peace and Freedom Party in California (a loose coalition of Maoists and Trotskyites) in the past and Pat Buchanan in the early 90’s (we don’t have to delve into all the stuff that happened immediately after the Buchanan campaign).

                      Block was arguing, yet again, that Trump was the non-interventionist in the race. They wrote positive articles about Obama in 2008 for the same reason.

                      But, I agree that it’s one thing to say “this non-libertarian candidate is preferable to the other non-libertarian candidate” versus “I openly support this non-libertarian candidate”. Block cheer leading for Trump was stupid, especially considering that even The American Conservative, which is also centrally focused on foreign interventionism but from a quasi-paleoconservative perspective, didn’t even wholly back Trump.

                      Trump may be slightly less interventionist, so far, but he is still hawkish as shit. The fact that he may have been preferable in terms of foreign policy, in comparison to Clinton, really speaks to how aggressive American foreign policy has been for over a hundred years.

                    4. Whoa. Here I thought this was going to be an uninformed, uncharitable circlejerkish “amiright, guys” mocking of “libertarian socialism” (as opposed to an informed criticism, of which there certainly are many); and it turns out to branch out in several directions to some of the most reflective and fair-minded discussion I have ever seen on HnR.

                2. I agree with this. “Question authority” is a central idea in libertarianism for me, and that authority isn’t only limited to government. It’s not the same as rejection of authority. You can question something and ultimately decide to go along because it works for you as an individual, but to just blindly accept what you’re told ONLY because some person claims to have the law, or god, or a professional degree, a large bank account, or years of wisdom on their side, so “no need to think for yourself, kid,” is just dumb.

        5. Shikha fancies herself a “progressive libertarian”

      2. She might have made a minor error in her explanation of the unemployment rate, but Ocasio-Cortez has significant appeal to libertarians. Most importantly, she wants to #AbolishICE. I have no problem creating alliances with Democratic Socialists, as long as they are on the right side of history with respect to immigration.

        1. Minor, indeed.

          #AbolishPedants

        2. You’re not a libertarian, you’re a parody, so it doesn’t really matter who you want to build alliances with.

  6. Jordan, meanwhile, has received the backing of Fox News host Sean Hannity and conservative groups like Tea Party Patriots and FreedomWorks.

    So he is a terrible choice.

    1. Ummm…you don’t know karate, so I’d watch what I say about Sean Hannity

        1. Chris Cuomo better be careful too….

        2. I never get tired of that video. That is one of the greatest things ever.

  7. “allegations that he ignored sexual abuse claims”

    The perfect smear – impossible to disprove.

    1. “What did he know and when did he know it” is frequently a subject of investigation. I don’t know what he knew or should have known.

  8. Also, what’s up with that guy’s hair?

    1. Was that a humble brag that you are sporting a lush coif like Robby?

    2. His hairstyle sends a subliminal message to all the pretty ladies within his immediate surroundings.
      The message is: “Hey baby, why don’t you COMB OVER to my place tonight?”

  9. Trump’s apologists are training Americans to tune out even those critiques that have some merit

    No, Mueller is doing that.

    And maybe wanting an end to that farce isn’t a sign that they have “lost interest in holding President Donald Trump accountable” (for what?) – maybe it’s just a sign that they believe the country has wasted enough money on it and gotten zero out of it.

    1. Just give the investigation two more years. Then they’ll wrap it up (depending on who the president is then)

    2. Wow. I’ve heard that Matt Welch has gone bad… but apparently he turned into a real Deep State propagandist.

      1. Not entirely true. Early on in the investigation he warned that if there is nothing there than this will be very bad (I can’t find the article. It was originally in LA Times). Recently he seems to have changed his position, though nothing new has been uncovered.

    1. It’s just another obvious example of a thing ReasonKKK won’t cover due to their association with communists.

      1. They are an impressive collection of soyboy cucks.

        1. A bunch of 30 year old boomers.

    2. Well, at least he has the good sense not to don THE GREEN JACKET. He knows that he is not Jack Nicklaus or Patrick Reed.

  10. What a nice thread.

  11. What is it about pedophile wrestling coaches and being speaker of the house?

  12. yay! Hope he wins.

    Everyone should notice what vermin the establishment are. Unfalsifiable charges of complicity with sexual abuse, where the underlying abuse charges are simply absurd themselves.

    Grown men who wrestled at the college level are supposedly the helpless little victims of sexual assault by a wrestling team doctor who touched them in the groin during hernia examinations and didn’t walk by the showers with a bag over his head.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.