It’s unfortunate however that that in this whole circus, there are some pretty grounded criticisms of the Speakership (under both Dems and GOP) that are getting lost. Former GOP Rep. Justin Amash has gone into some fascinating detail about how centralized and un-deliberative the House has become in recent decades under leadership from both parties wherein the rank-and-file is no longer allowed any meaningful input in the crafting of legislation or voting on amendments. These criticisms have also been echoed by many on the Dem side. Highly recommend giving him a listen…if nothing it’s interesting for the granular detail on just the day-to-day functioning of the House.
There are pluses and minuses to that argument. What some call non-deliberative, others call legislative discipline. I can remember members trying to attach everything under the sun, in the form of an amendment, during floor votes. So parties would work to develop consensus, that then would evaporate as amendments were piled on.
Now, that process happens in committee, where it comes up for a vote before it hits the floor. Which means it's difficult to mount a rogue amendment that doesn't have broad support. By design, that limits the kind of stuff the Freedom Caucus wants to add, and favors the party line instead.
That's their true goal, as I explained in a comment above. They want to be able to upend the process, if they don't get their way. What you see them doing right now, is what they would do with legislation as well. Also why they want a single member to be able to force a vote on the speaker.
It's all shenanigans that allow them outsized power relative to their numbers. That's what this is all about.
As far as the comparison to Manchin and Sinema, at least they were negotiating for real positions. As has been discussed all day today, the Freedom Caucus doesn't have an ask, they just want the power to decide the speaker. If they had an ask, or a reasonable position, there could be a negotiated compromise, as usually happens.