JONATHAN COHN OCTOBER 14, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a conference call with some bloggers and reporters on Wednesday. She spent a great deal of time exuding confidence and predicting that Democrats would fare well on Election Day. I think the word “momentum” came up more than once.
I don’t know whether she is really that optimistic. I'm certainly not. I’d like very much to see the Democrats maintain control of Congress and, I agree, there have been a few encouraging signs lately, particularly on the Senate side. (Christine O’Donnell is the gift that keeps on giving.) But the odds are still against the Democrats, particularly in the House. Then again, the last time Pelosi defied conventional wisdom so brazenly was in late January and early February, when she kept insisting health care reform would pass. Maybe she knows something the rest of us don't.
In any event, it was something else Pelosi said that really got my attention—and got me thinking. She pointed out, correctly, that this Congress has accomplished an enormous amount, from the stimulus to health care reform to financial regulation. But the record of the House, in particular, is even stronger. It’s easy to forget now, but the House did pass a climate change bill. It also passed a health care bill stronger than the final package, in the sense that it guaranteed more generous coverage and included a public option. The House wanted a bigger stimulus, too. But the House had to give ground on all of these because the Senate couldn’t, or wouldn’t, go along.
The House obviously has certain institutional advantages over the Senate: Membership more closely reflects public opinion, since small states aren’t over-represented, and there’s no filibuster to block majority rule. But it’s not as if corralling House Democrats has been easy easy. On climate change, in particular, Democrats were far from united. Members with ties to oil, gas, auto, and other carbon-producing industries had serious reservations. Blue Dogs and others representing conservative districts were nervous about the appearance of raising taxes. Passing a bill despite those divisions was no small feat. Pelosi deserves a lot of credit for that--just as she deserves a lot of credit for saving health care reform.
There are obviously a lot of people out there who really don’t like Nancy Pelosi and what she stands for. There are also a lot of people who are simply angry--about the economy, about the way Washington works--and to them Pelosi is a symbol of the status quo. Fine, fine. You expect these people to vote against her and her party. But, come November, it may be the disillusionment of progressives that keeps House Democrats from holding the majority and forces Pelosi out as Speaker. And that seems more than a little bit ironic.
It's not Pelosi's fault Congress didn't produce more liberal legislation. But she, not Harry Reid or Barack Obama, is the one most likely to lose her job because of that failure.
9 comments
I find it generally reassuring when somone in government loses power, except for Democrats.
- Nusholtz
October 14, 2010 at 1:56pm
The more interesting question is, what happens if the Democrats hold on to the House by a thread? A number of Blue Dogs have publically stated that they will not vote for Pelosi for Speaker. If there is, e.g., a four vote difference between the parites, what can the Democrats do to hold the Speakership except elect somebody other than Pelosi?
- JohnEMack
October 15, 2010 at 9:26am
I still don't understand this castigation of progressives. From what I read in the polls, the Democrats are in trouble because independents are switching from Democratic to Republican this time. Yes, participation in midterm elections is traditionally lower for nearly all groups of voters, except the elderly. The young and poor never come out in force for the midterms, and this year is probably no exception. Maybe if the Democrats had done a better job reassuring seniors that they weren't going to gut Medicare and Social Security during the disastrous health care discussions last summer they wouldn't be in the trouble they're in now. But the idea that politically active progressives will stay home and let Boener & Co. take over just to spite the Blue Dogs is laughable.
- stanalama
October 15, 2010 at 12:23pm
This is a nation where a majority of voters are moderate to slightly right of center. Many who were fed up with Bush saw Obama as someone who would govern from the center much like Clinton. However, he chose to let Pelosi/Reid take the helm thus turning off most independents/moderates who do not agree with her liberal/progressive West Coast views.
- Ramsden67
October 15, 2010 at 1:58pm
Ram. or it could be that BHO and the Senate Dems in particular are introble because they they were NOT sufficiently progressive. they advocated a weak stimulus package that prevented another Great Depression but not the Greatest Recession. And a relatively weak insurance reform bill instead of an ovvious health reform bill. Banking reform that barely deserves trhe name. "Incoherent and timid but better than Bush and the Repubs" hasn't made for great political success. It's looking more and more for domestic policy that one will say Fillmore, Buchanon, Carter and Obama in the same breath--- rather than Jackson, TR, FDR, LBJ and BHO in the same breath (albeit if BHO continues in his present course in Afghanistan, we may soon be saying LBJ and BHO in the same breath).
- drofnats1
October 15, 2010 at 5:18pm
"Centrists", "moderates", "pragmatists", broderite villagers all, must have a scapegoat. They may have squandered historic electoral success in an 18-month circus of obfuscation, political and moral cowardice, and preemptive capitulation, but it was those mean old progressives who brought them low... I'll wager that 99% of self-professed progressives will vote Democrat next month, but don't let that prevent you from slagging them off.
- chuckvw
October 15, 2010 at 6:34pm
To hear the left tell it the Democrats are in trouble because they aren't socialist enough in domestic policy and because they aren't pro-Islamofascist enough in foreign policy. If only Obama would take a clue from true progressives like Hugo Chavez and Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore and Fidel Castro. Oh, wait a minute, Fidel has gone capitalist. Hugo Chavez is in trouble. What's worse, Europe is moving toward economic liberalism. Help, freedom is breaking out all over! Soon the (majority of the) commenters on TNR, Hamas, Ahmedinejad and the leaders of North Korea will be all by themselves. As for Nancy Pelosi, she has an approval rating of 11%. The American people despise her, and they are right to do so.
- bulbman1066
October 15, 2010 at 11:20pm
Democrats could have gotten a lot more done, or at least produced better versions of what they did get done, if they had actually tried to use some Republican input instead of just pretending to and then complaining when Republicans wouldn't go along with the charade. Single-party rule has produced a disaster for Dems exactly as it did in Clinton's first two years. For this Pelosi and Reid deserve most of the blame.
- Robert Powell
October 16, 2010 at 4:29am
I want all the commenters here who whine, complain, b**ch and moan to run for elected office. If you can't at least offer constructive criticism, offer some ideas that we can understand and get behind.
- soulife53
October 19, 2010 at 7:31am