Politico recently did a profile of Cheri Bustos, 55, and her ability to win and defend her Illinois seat since 2012, despite Trump carrying her district. She got 60% of the vote in a district Trump won by a nose. Despite winning her seat comfortably, there she sits on the Agriculture and Transportation committees. Reportedly she is considering giving the House thing up and running for Governor.
Lets assume Democrats win back the House next year. What can we expect in terms of leadership?
Well, we know Nancy Pelosi, 77, would become Speaker and her current leadership would take their appropriate majority posts. That would mean Steny Hoyer, 77, would become Majority Leader. Jim Clyburn, 76, would become Majority Whip. The Conference Chair, Joe Crowley, at a relatively spry 55 would probably keep his job. Of the notable committee chairs, Ways and Means would get Richard Neal, 68; Appropriations, Nita Lowey, 79; Judiciary, John Conyers, 87; Budget, John Yarmouth, 69; Rules, Louise Slaughter, 87; Elijah Cummings at Oversight is practically the new kid on the block at 66.
In other words, don’t expect any of these folks to be breaking through on Twitter or Facebook or going viral any time soon.
If we win, it won’t be because of the effectiveness of any of these people, lets be frank about it. If they alone could win the House, they would have done it by now. If we win the House, it will be because of Trump, for sure, but also because we ran a slew of exciting fresh young people who know how to win. But once they win, they will rapidly be shunted off to the back bench to keep quiet while folks who have served for decades grab all the spotlight and all the power. That’s a shame, because these new, victorious faces are exactly the people who should be front and center in confronting Trump from a position of strength.
Look, all these folks I’ve listed here are good people. They’ve served a long time and in some cases with distinction. Their wisdom should be valued and useful. But one of the key problems Democrats in the House face is that the likelihood that they will ever get to make a difference on policy or politics in Washington is basically zero. We are talking decades before they ever get into any kind of position of authority which is ridiculous. Who would possibly want to stick around for that when opportunity in the private sector, or a run for statewide office or a Mayor’s seat is much more tempting for someone who wants to make a difference with their public service and not just sit like a potted plant rubber stamping leadership decisions. Prospects for a more rapid advancement up the majority ladder will help us attract better candidates to win difficult seats. We have a slew of dynamic young members elected since 2006 who are basically stuck doing nothing. They should be more rapidly promoted up the ranks based on ability, not just how long they’ve stuck around.
Now I don’t think a freshman congressperson should head directly to the Speaker’s office or a chairmanship, but we could use a rule like the Republicans have in placing term limits on chairmanships and ranking memberships and keeping a steady stream of new talent coming into position. A scrapping of the seniority only system is in order, at a minimum. We should consider a person’s public political acumen as well as their legislative talents in choosing leadership. Perhaps, and I know this is a stretch, we might even consider their careers before Congress as a factor.
What’s great is we don’t have to lose all the institutional memory here while also asking them to politely make way. If I were a young Congressman, I’d love to have a John Conyers to consult with. But John Conyers is clearly past his sell-by date. Judiciary, especially, needs a vigorous new media-savvy leader to check Trump’s assault on the rule of law. Conyers could be instrumental in helping that happen, but he doesn’t have to lead it himself just because he’s been around since the early 70’s.