11/15/2006: Leadership 101
What is she thinking?!?!
We've been told by countless election analysts that voters in last week's Midterm Election were punishing a Republican Congress perceived to be in the pocket of big special interest groups.
But in trying to shape her new leadership team, incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been endorsing a colleague who has a reputation for shady relationships with special interest groups.
Last year, Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's infamous relationship with high-profile lobbyist Jack Abramoff landed them both of them in serious legal problems and put the Republican Party on the firing line for voters sick of this 'business as usual' attitude by congressional leaders.
So the pundits are left scratching their talking heads now that Pelosi is pushing for Rep. Jack Murtha (PA) to become the new Democratic House Majority Leader.
While Murtha has been known to the national media as the decorated Marine veteran who called for the immediate removal of U.S. troops from Iraq, has also had a lesser known reputation as the consummate political insider who doesn't shy away from relationships with big special interests.
For all of you young politicians out there, the lesson in all of this is that leadership matters.
Leaders of any institution create a culture for that organization.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel who led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee shows this best. He instilled a sense of swagger and ruthlessness into Democratic House candidates that helped them destroy the Republican majority in the House.
But running Congress is more than just about winning majorities. The leadership also has to govern.
Nancy Pelosi wants to be known as the Speaker who cleaned up the lavish excesses of Congress, but this will become much more difficult if her top lieutenant is perceived to be the Democratic version of Tom DeLay.
Congressional leaders have incredible power to shape policy by controlling legislative calendars and guiding legislation through the complex committee process. One of the legacies that Republicans leave behind is that this process was controlled by political fat cats and big-pocketed special interest groups. The new Democratic congressional leadership should learn the lesson from their fate.
Calling all friends of the program:
The Washington Post is having a contest for their favorite education blogs. If CitizenU has increased your knowledge of civics, we'd appreciate if you would send your comments to Mr. Jay Matthews (matthewsj@washpost.com) and Mr. Walt Gardner (walt.gard@verizon.net).
posted by CitizenU @ 8:05 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
I feel that this Democratic majority will be short lived. Nancy Pelosi will make the same errors as the GOP did this past election, lose control of the middle.
Stevo
p.s. I left some positive comments with Mr. Gardner and Mr. Matthews.
For years now it has been said that "we used to politic to govern, but now we govern to politic." Certainly the Republicans got caught in this proverbial trap.
Looks like Democrats,despite their rhetoric to the contrary, will return the favor . . . sooner than later.
steve, as usual, I disagree with you. While Nancy Pelosi is far to the left, a lot of the new Dems are center-right, people like Jim Webb, who's pro-gun, pro-life. Also, many of them are political outsiders, so they may not stick to party lines as well as Pelosi would like. From a purely political standpoint, Dems must continue courting the middle for 2008. As for Murtha, he's very experienced in Washington, so having him in the leadership might be good to guide in all the 06 outsiders. And he's not William Jefferson, which is a big bonus.
He might be a good guide to newcomers, but he's not the right man for the job. I suppose you're right in saying that there are worse candidates out there, but Pelosi needs to remember that the newly elected Democrats are not the party she knows and loves. As Speaker she is already fairly radical, and electing a majority speaker who doesn't even represent the majority of her own party is a bad idea. Furthermore, the Democrats won based pretty much on their promise of change. The last thing we want now is to bring in a political hack as the face of the Democratic majority. Maybe it's time for a younger, newer, or, dare I say it...less partisan member of the party to be the head.
With regards to losing the middle. We can't lose it. The point is that we are the middle. The moderate Republicans were kicked out in the House. The real threat to the Democrats is the possibility of the next two years becoming revenge against Bush time. They were elected on the platform of change, and I believe that they'll keep the majority, but only if they organize and start moving for a better America.
Mcfate,
A my friend. You are one of the many typical citizens of te United States. You are correct in saying that the Dems were elected on a platform of change. People voed for the Democrats as if they were a referendum. They voted for the Democrats because they wanted to end the war in Iraq but they failed to realized that the Democrats solution is to send more troops. Troops cost a lot of money.
That fact will be the downfall of the Democrats. You cannot say the words "tax increase" in the U.S. and get elected.
So I say good luck to the tax increasing Democrats next election. But I fear I will have to bid you farewell.
Peace,
Stevo
You know, that's funny, because there are quite a few Dems who do support tax increase and got elected. Also, the Democratic solution to the war is not unanimously to send more troops in. If it were, I could see the East Coast suddenly becoming red before my eyes. However, here are a few words you can't say and get reelected:
Mckawka (Senator Alan)
Lets make a deal (Tom DeLay)
Come here little boy (rep. Foley)
Although, I suppose it is the curse of us "typical" Americans to listen to multiple news sources and not take the actions of a minority to represent the majority, something clearly you above average Americans haven't done. If I may, I would humbly suggest watching more than just Fox next time.
The solution to Iraq is hardly a fixed unanimous position, and any workable solution will require compromise on both sides of the fence. The kiss of death to Dems would be a failure to cooperate, but then again...
That's only us typical Americans speaking
Murtha is definitely a good compromise, though. He's not very pro-choice, and the NRA has endorsed him. Not on the same page as one might think of a Democrat.
For as much as Pelosi is liberal, considering that a lot of the new Democrats are pretty conservative (pro-guns, anti-choice (or call it pro-life, but I won't), and anti-gay marriage), we would need a rather conservative House majority leader to bridge the gap between those conservative Dems and the liberal ones. Otherwise, we might have a three-way split! Kind of exciting--a third party could be born out of this new generation of those who call themselves Democrats--are we perhaps reverting back to that phenomenon of those who were called "Southern Democrats"?
Oh, and I sent a nice e-mail to Mr. Gardner and Mr. Matthews. This blog is truly awesome :).
Hey, that's actually pretty interesting. I could see a new party being formed, but more than likely the democrats would just shift their entire political spectrum right. I think we'll see a different Democratic party rather than a three way split, but it does sound pretty interesting. What would the new party call itself? I doubt it would help the Dems keep control of congress because invaiably the Republicans would stand united,regadless of what they unite behind. Ultimatley, which party would survive, the liberal Dems or the more Moderate Dems. I am so voting "No Nothing".
We've seen a major shift to the right in both parties, so if a split does happen, I'm betting on a pluarality for the GOP, and the moderate Dems would have more members over the more liberal Dems. However, when's the last time we had three main parties in Congress? It's unlikely, but I think that if it's going to happen, the time is right now (even though I'd be devastated...my poor liberal Dems wouldn't have much power). There'd most likely be a coalition government (like in Israel and Iraq), which we sort of see anyway: conservative Dems and liberal Dems are seemingly going to work together, even though they don't support many of the same issues. Congress would also have to reconsider the way it "unofficially" works, such as how it appoints Chairpeople and Ranking Members on committees, etc.
The new names? Liberal Dems: The People's Party (yea, it sounds Soviet Red :D)--or we could call it the Labour Party like every other country does (yes, British spelling style), Moderate Dems: Democrats, and the GOP: Republicans.
And just so Larsen and Conneen know, the e-mail for Mr. Mathews is: mathewsj@washpost.com...there's only one "t" (I got a bounceback).
Post a Comment
<< Home