The bad omen in Democrats' reorganization of House leadership
When the rules of the House of Representatives forced the Democrats to confront a painful choice among their leaders, they did what Democrats are often inclined to do. They changed the rules.
Usually, such a stunt would matter only to the members affected by the change. But this one sends a dangerous signal at a crucial moment, when both parties are being tested on their willingness to respond to the lessons of the last election. This is a disquieting development.
When the Democrats lost their House majority in the political upheaval on Nov. 2, they also lost one of their four leadership posts. Since the speaker would no longer come out of their caucus, House rules required them to yield it to the Republicans, who will use it to elevate John Boehner.
Instead of having four people in the formal leadership of the House, the Democrats should have three - a minority leader, a deputy or whip, and the chairman of the Democratic caucus.
It has always worked this way whenever an election shifts control of the House between the parties. Someone on the losing side loses his leadership job.
Republicans have established a pattern and precedent of trimming their leadership from the top, either by deposing the outgoing speaker or encouraging him to leave the House. When Republicans lost their majority in 2006, Speaker Denny Hastert took it as a cue that it was time to go home to Illinois.
There was ample precedent for firing from the top on the Democratic side as well. Speaker Tom Foley lost his seat when home-district voters rebelled in the Republican rout of 1994. Speaker Jim Wright was forced out after being investigated for financial ethics violations.
But Speaker Nancy Pelosi lost no time after the returns came in this month in signaling that she would not go gently. Within hours of learning that she would no longer be speaker, she informed her caucus that she would run for minority leader - a post she won on Wednesday.
Except for a few disgruntled members of the conservative Blue Dog caucus and some Republicans, no opposition surfaced. Pelosi has been the best fundraiser on the Democratic side, funneling money to both liberals and moderates. And she has been President Obama's loyal lieutenant in the legislative fights of the past two years.
Her decision triggered other battles. When she claimed the minority leadership, Steny Hoyer was demoted one level to whip, and he in turn bumped Jim Clyburn from that job.
Hoyer had no problem in accepting the change; he had been No. 2 to Pelosi before. But Clyburn was not as accommodating and with his unwillingness to step down a post, the Democratic caucus suddenly faced a crisis.
The two men who both aspired to remain in the leadership were no ordinary players. Hoyer, who once challenged Pelosi unsuccessfully for the top post, had close ties to moderate and conservative Democrats already devastated by their election losses. Clyburn is a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus, in many ways the most loyal and dependable bloc in the party.
Neither man was willing to step down, and Democrats could not afford for either to be humiliated. So what to do? Change the rules. Invent a job of assistant leader, with no specific duties, and slot Clyburn for that post.
Normally, this would not matter much. But we are about to start a Congress in which everything depends on the willingness of the leadership in both parties to face up to hard choices - on the budget, Afghanistan and a dozen other issues.
Too often in the past, Democrats have avoided making hard choices by throwing more money in the pot or taking similar self-indulgent steps. When it came to the stimulus legislation and health-care reform, for example, Democrats spent to buy votes rather than make tough choices.
The Democrats' unwillingness to face the hard choice in this internal fight sends exactly the wrong signal.
David Broder is a columnist for The Washington Post. Readers may write to him via e-mail at davidbroder@washpost.com.
Nov 24, 2010 at 7:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
It is clear you don't know the meaning of envious.
Nov 24, 2010 at 8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Its clear conservatives are envious of Ms. Pelosi's effectiveness. She is very good at what she does but that does not stop the personal attacks. There has been nothing but wailing and the gnashing of teeth as she goes about her business and yet the world has not ended. To paraphrase Twain, the demise of the US under Democratic control has been greatly exaggerated.
Nov 23, 2010 at 1:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tornados and bull dozers in the right hands are productive as well as destructive, just like nancy and her agenda.
Nov 22, 2010 at 1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Your opinion of Nancy Pelosi really doesn't matter, the fact is she got results.
Yep, she got results alright, helped put the House in Republican hands.
Nov 22, 2010 at 12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Surge forward and tell yourself the electorate was either too stupid or you failed to communicate effectively." Well that certainly describes the Republican party! You see the Republicans have an approval rating that ranges from 25-39% over the past few years based on their Congressional performance. Not exactly a ringing endorsement on their policies either.
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.ht...
-
I know "productive" can mean so many things vatoloco so here is the definition.
pro·duc·tive [pruh-duhk-tiv] –adjective
1. having the power of producing; generative; creative: a productive effort.
2. producing readily or abundantly; fertile:
3. causing; bringing about
This most recent Congressional session passed more legislation than any session since the 1940's. Your opinion of Nancy Pelosi really doesn't matter, the fact is she got results.
Nov 20, 2010 at 10 a.m.
Suggest removal
By all means, keep her in leadership of the democratic party, please. The dem. party (what is left of them) is more liberal than ever. Good setup for conservatives going into 2012. I'm happy you all approve of her considering the congressional approval ratings were what 20-30% with her in charge? You had a super majority in congress and still managed to irritate and alienate, well the entire electorate. And you can't blame that one on republicans because with the numbers dems had before the election they could have pushed any legislation through they wanted including full single payer healthcare but she failed. You can't get much worse than a 70% disapproval rating. Poor leadership. But by all means, don't rethink your strategy. Surge forward and tell yourself the electorate was either too stupid or you failed to communicate effectively.
Nov 19, 2010 at 8:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
"This past session of Congress has been the most productive since the 1940's"
Or looked another way, Pelosi is being tossed up as a sacrifice because no other Democrat wants to get their hands dirty and get voted out later. They figure it is only a matter of time before the old greyhound can't run anymore.
By productive, you mean the information contained in the links below, correct?
The red bars describe you to a T, red.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush...
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past...
Nov 19, 2010 at 8:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Home run, Janesvillean! Broder seems to be in his own world at times, and often wrong. He is a beltway writer.
Nov 19, 2010 at 12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Evidently billnewbie you seem a bit confused as to what the role of the leader is in the House. This past session of Congress has been the most productive since the 1940's. The leader is charged with passing legislation, not to win a popularity contest. Based on results, Pelosi has proven to be effective at getting the votes needed to pass legislation, therefore, most Democrats see the value of keeping her in a leadership role. Its that simple. I guess it was a slow news day for Broder so instead he invents a problem that doesn't exist. Republicans have had individuals "assisting" their house leaders in the past whether in the majority or not, so what rule did the Democrats violate?
Nov 19, 2010 at 10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
The "elegant", graceful solution for Democrats would have been for Rep. Pelosi to step down voluntarily. She lead the Democrats into the humiliation they now find themselves so she should take responsibility for what she hath wrought. Let some fresh blood lead the way. But no, power is too strong an intoxicant for Madam Pelosi to walk away from. So, how many seats do the House Democrats have to lose in one election for them to realize they need a new leader?
Nov 19, 2010 at 9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
This is another weird example of "Broderism". He has his own idiosyncratic set of rules for how politics should take place and, well, he may be the Dean of the DC press corps, but he doesn't come from anywhere substantive on this. The Democrats chose an elegant solution that avoids an intraparty fight when they can least afford it. This is, in fact, exactly in keeping with Pelosi's leadership to date, which successfully pressed through important progressive legislation such as health care reform. Whether you like the result or not, this is how major legislation gets passed, not by playing Broderesque games.
Nov 19, 2010 at 9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
So how did the Republicans work out for the previous eight years? Ran the nation down a rathole!!!!!
Nov 18, 2010 at 2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Interesting article, but I would think that just one time the Gazette would allow people to comment on something favorable to the Democrats. How about the current status of GM, for instance. In a short time, only about 25% of "Government Motors" will be government owned. And that will continue to drop as shares are sold. Another example that the President's policies are working. But NOOOOO, the Gazette would rather that issue not be discussed. Objective journalism?...I think not!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.