On Tuesday, two moderate-ish House Democrats — two of the last remaining ones in districts that reliably lean Republican — voted with the GOP to advance several pieces of legislation to the floor in order to clear a procedural hurdle.
One of the pieces of legislation was a bill that would help both coastal districts stay in Democrat hands, considering the economic factors, by protecting lobstermen from ludicrous environmental regulations.
Another was a resolution condemning socialism.
Democrats are furious that two of their own in swing districts voted sensibly. They want swift and strong repercussions dealt out to them by Democratic leadership in the lower chamber.
The reason, according to one House Democrat? Well, they’re afraid that if they let the sane Democrats vote their conscience, the insane socialist Democrats won’t toe the party line, either.
Some logic, that.
The story begins Tuesday, when Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington and Jared Golden of Maine voted with most of the House Republicans to clear the procedural hurdle after five Republicans refused to join in protest — not of the legislation, mind you, but because a vote taken just previously on a spending continuing resolution gave too many concessions to the Democrats, in their view, and didn’t allow Republicans to add amendments to the Senate-passed bill.
Whether this move was wise is another discussion entirely, but the fact is that it happened, and Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden stepped in to give the GOP the majority it needed to clear the procedural hurdle, where the legislation passed. The Democrats weren’t so upset over the fact that the objectionable parts passed — indeed, stopping it once it reached the floor, which it eventually would, was almost guaranteed to fail — but instead that Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden didn’t advise Democratic leadership of their vote beforehand.
“The two Democrats who voted for the rule did not give any member of House Democratic leadership a heads-up, and as a result, blindsided the entire caucus and created a significant breach of trust,” Jeffries told reporters when asked if he was disappointed in the two.
Later, he issued a joint statement with House Democratic leadership: “It is an action that necessitates a serious response, and we have asked the Committee on Caucus Rules to take this up in short order.”
At least according to a Fox News report as of Wednesday afternoon, there were no plans to go after the other Democrats who voted to condemn socialism, which was a small but substantial enough number.
However, going after Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez seems politically perilous — the left flank of the party has already hounded Golden out of running again in 2026, increasing the chances the seat will fall into GOP hands, and Gluesenkamp Perez barely survived a primary challenge from a progressive, along with other attacks on her from House Democrats.
So, why are they going to come down hard on two Democrats who advanced, among other things, a resolution condemning socialism? Because they’re afraid of socialists, apparently.
From Politico:
Many Democrats are hoping Jeffries will set an assertive tone and send a message that some protest tactics will not be tolerated in a future majority. The situation is of particular interest to members given the slate of insurgent hard-left members poised to join the caucus next term — some of whom have openly discussed adopting strategies embraced by the hard right.
“It’s an open secret — we don’t want to end up with our own Freedom Caucus,” one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly said in an interview, referring to the fractious ultraconservative group. “You see how a core group of people can stop the workings here… when it’s continual and it’s just about grandstanding… We don’t want that.”
“I’m not saying that those folks coming in are going to operate in that way,” the member added. “We don’t know. But we’ve got to tighten up the systems.”
I have to admit, it’s one thing to follow the old contradictory maxim, “the beatings will continue until morale improves.” It’s quite another entirely to make up a new one — “beatings will continue until the morale of the enemies of the people we’re beating improves because they think we’ll beat them next.”
And this logic, while expressed in the most hilariously paradoxical terms by the anonymous Democrat quoted, is apparently also motivating others in the Democrat hierarchy.
“If there’s no understanding that we need to stay together on procedural measures, then we’re going to be like Republicans,” said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee.
“I mean, they can’t get anything done because everybody’s going off in different directions.”
This is problematic for its own reasons, however. Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden are getting the truncheon because they’re staying with their original heterodox moderate-ish Democratic positions. The “different direction” that the party is “going off” in has to do with people like the “Squad” and the incoming insurgents like Darializa Avila Chevalier or Melat Kiros, who are socialists that will almost certainly win their deep-blue districts after unseating sounder minds in the primaries.
At virtually every juncture, when the Democrats have had the opportunity to sanction these radicals for going off in their own direction, they’ve averred.
A censure resolution against Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar for a constant drumbeat of anti-Semitic tropes during her first few months in Congress back in 2019 was watered down to a mere resolution not mentioning her and condemning all forms of bigotry — including “Islamophobia” and “white supremacy.” The only thing lacking from turning a serious rebuke into a kumbaya moment was Nancy Pelosi and Jim Clyburn donning kente cloth and singing “Free to Be You and Me” arm-in-arm from the House floor.
When the House did get around to censuring a Democrat socialist for anti-Semitism, it was Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib in 2023 for constant anti-Semitic remarks and false narratives in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks. According to Politico, only 22 Democrats voted for it, despite the fact that her language was barely disguised Jew-baiting and her claims mere propaganda, but the Democratic leadership then allowed her to play the victim by allowing a speech where Tlaib openly wept for facing actual consequences for causing real harm take center stage in the censure drama.
But boy, this time they’re really going to keep those socialists in line — by punishing two very-much-not-socialist members of their caucus for advancing legislation condemning creeping socialism in American politics.
If this really is the case — and sadly, I believe they’re not lying when they say this is the intended consequence from the proposed action — I’ve seen better strategic thinking at play watching Boss Hogg and Roscoe hatch another witless plot to make sure them Duke boys are finally put in the pokey so they don’t keep on causin’ trouble ’round Hazzard County here.
Even if it isn’t the intended consequence and this is just open season on moderates, the actual consequence will be the same: Not only will they get their own Freedom Caucus, they’ll get something far worse, unmoored to any kind of principle but that of obtaining power and checking the party not because of its excesses of compromise, but instead of common sense.
If there’s any way to telegraph that party leadership will fold again and again to these extremists, it’s by punishing the few remaining Democrats that have no truck with the extremist wing. Nice work, everyone.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
