Pro-Pelosi forces launched a snarky Twitter assault against a handful of the men leading the rebellion.
The feud over who will be the next speaker of the House is heating up, as allies of the longtime Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, take on a rowdy band of rebels pushing for regime change.
Pro-Pelosi forces launched a snarky Twitter assault against a handful of the men leading the rebellion. As progressive pundit Joan Walsh tweeted, “So #fivewhiteguys are following the tactics of the right wing white guy Freedom Caucus to block a woman speaker after an election in which women saved the Democrats. Got it.”
One of the targeted white guys, Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, fired back, “There’s plenty of really competent females that we can replace her with” — to which Pelosi defenders gleefully responded with the hashtag #CompetentFemales. (Think of it as this year’s “binders full of women.”)
Distressed by the increasingly public and caustic spat, two incoming California Democrats, Katie Hill and Mike Levin, issued a joint statement Thursday urging colleagues, for the sake of the new majority, to drop the “discord and infighting” and “unite” behind Pelosi’s “bold, pragmatic” leadership. In a closed-door meeting with fellow freshmen, Hill reportedly pleaded, “We don’t have time for internal squabbling — we have to get things done.”
To which I feel moved to reply: Bollocks. For the sake of the new majority, now is precisely the time for squabbling over the shape and direction of the caucus — though Ryan should seriously rethink his talking points.
With a large freshman class on its way and the Democratic Party in the midst of a roaring debate about its core values, there will, of course, be clashes about who will have what kind of influence in the caucus, and which voices will lead the way. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the member-elect representing parts of the Bronx and Queens, does not share the political style or the priorities of Rep. Conor Lamb, who was first elected in a special election in March from a decidedly Trumpy corner of Pennsylvania. Many incoming Democrats ran on the promise of disrupting the status quo. And there’s a wide range of views about the degree to which the party should try to work with President Donald Trump on issues of shared interest versus pursuing a path of total resistance. Members old and new need to air their grievances, hash out their differences and set a course for how the team can better function over the next two sure-to-be-bonkers years.
Few would deny that the Democratic caucus is overdue for an overhaul. As has been noted repeatedly, it has a hard-earned reputation as a dead end for talented up-and-comers. The senior leadership team is stagnant, having kept a death grip on the top trio of jobs for the better part of a decade. (With 15 years at the top, Pelosi is the second-longest serving Democratic leader ever.) Committee chairmanships are doled out based heavily on seniority, and, once ensconced, chairmen are tougher to root out than kudzu. This system deprives younger members of the opportunity for growth and, worse still, deprives the entire party of a much-needed pipeline of talent. Republicans have been aggressively working to address this problem for years — for instance, by term-limiting their committee chairmen — and many Democratic members look longingly across at the aisle at what they’ve accomplished.
Other types of reform are being sought as well. A bipartisan gaggle known as the Problem Solvers Caucus has put together a slate of rule changes aimed at empowering rank-and-file members and cutting down on gridlock. Nine Democrats in the group have threatened to withhold their support from Pelosi unless she embraces their platform.
All of these ideas, and more, should be worked through while the caucus is getting organized and hammering out the rules of engagement for the coming Congress. While some will argue that it is risky, or even wrong, for members to leverage their votes for speaker to get concerns taken seriously, the reality is that this is how the game is played.
In the grim aftermath of the 2016 elections, some of the same members currently challenging Pelosi were grumbling — loudly — about the ossification of leadership and the lack of opportunities for young talent. Ryan even launched a quixotic (read: quasi-suicidal) challenge to the minority leader. Looking to soothe the troops, Pelosi loosened her grip ever so slightly. She created new vice-ranking slots on the committees, specifically reserved for junior members, and decreed that the assistant-leader position would, once Rep. Jim Clyburn, who came to Congress in 1993, vacates the post, go to members who have served three or fewer terms.
Change is hard. Change in Congress can be darn near impossible. And convincing powerful members who have been well-served by the existing system to tinker with that system requires more than a gentle nudge.
Why shouldn’t reformers press their issues now, when they have influence with leadership? While Pelosi is seeking their support, they can lobby for rule changes to empower the rank-and-file, to reform how chairmanships are assigned, to put in place programs aimed at nurturing young talent — or maybe even to extract a promise that she will step gracefully aside in 2020.
Pelosi is a wily negotiator — one of the wiliest. She is not going to get rolled. But history shows that she does need a shove now and again to get her to embrace change. Better to have as many of these fights as possible before the new Congress convenes in January. At that point, the caucus will need to get focused and pull together for the real fights to come.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.from pulse.ng - Nigeria's entertainment & lifestyle platform online
from LexxyTech Corporation https://ift.tt/2A20yxx
0 Comments