Today's Article
Can Democrats
escape the
mistakes which cost
them Congress in
'94?
escape the
mistakes which cost
them Congress in
'94?
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Dems Try To Keep From Producing Fiefs In Congress
By Cliff Montgomery - Jan.12th, 2007
One of the first actions performed by new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was something we previously hadn't seen from
Democrats. She summoned the new chairmen of five committees overseeing various aspects of Iraq policy to her office,
to review and coordinate Democratic plans for both hearings and inquiries on the increasingly unpopular war.
Such gatherings would have been unthinkable when Democrats last controlled the House. In the "old days" before the 1994
Republican takeover, it was all-powerful Democratic chairmen who too often ruled their committees with an iron fist,
delegating with little regard to the views of the speaker or others in the upper ranks.
But that was then; this is now. The new Democratic leaders of the House and Senate are seeking to avoid such actions by
forging a working relationship with the men and women who will actually write the bills and lead the Congressional
investigations, taking a page from the Republican playbook by acting as a more coordinated group, rather than as power
brokers ruling over personal fiefdoms.
But can it be done? Liberalism by definition allows greater liberty; but with that clear advantage there is always the
possibility of small groups going their separate ways--which is to a great extent how they lost Congress in '94. Top
lawmakers acknowledge it is essential for Democrats to keep the overarching goals of the party from clashing with the
objectives of more independent chairmen.
“The challenge of maintaining a coherent message--even though the power in the Senate is so diffuse--is probably our
major challenge,” Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), the Senate’s third-ranking Democrat, told the New York Times.
But as is always the case when one party trounces another in a major election, some on the winning side immediately begin
touting their private cause. Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the Finance Committee chairman who has been a thorn to
past Democratic leaders, says he will plunge ahead with hearings next week on giving the American people the power to
negotiate Medicare drug prices with pharmaceutical companies through the tool of their democratically-elected
government. It's a top Democratic priority this friend of the drug companies has viciously opposed, and one the House
had planned to speed through quickly.
“If we want to do legislation, I want to get the facts first,” said Baucus--which in Washington double-speak means he will do
all he can to bury the facts in committee.
In the House, Representative John Dingell (D-MI), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has broken with
fellow Democrats over the years on an issue likely to return in this session: imposing tougher mileage standards on
automakers.
“I am a member of the team and I am going to be a team player, but it is too early to see how it is going to develop,” Mr.
Dingell said of the new relationship between party leaders and congressional chairmen.
Mr. Dingell is a holdover from the days when dominant Democratic chairmen used their power as legislative forces in their
own right, and the party leadership as a nuisance to be negotiated on the way to the floor.
“We simply carried on a tradition which was there, which was accepted, which was proper and which, very frankly, worked,”
Mr. Dingell told the Times.
But in fact the delegation of such power to committee chairmen came with a price. In 1994 Republicans continually
portrayed Democrats as arrogant and out-of-touch with "the common man." Right or wrong, it was a winning formula that
year, and the G.O.P. rode that portrayal to victory in 1994.
Once installed, the new Republican leadership quickly centralized power in the offices of speaker, majority leader and whip.
They stripped committee chairmen of the power to control their own legislation, enacted term limits, and forced prospective
chairmen to prove their ideological purity to the party leadership and bolster their commitment with a record of campaign
contributions.
But such moves carried their own price. The Republican Congress of 1994-2006 found such changes made it much harder
to enact all but the most popular legislation. In an interesting irony, 2006 was the year in which Republicans were--right or
wrong--continually portrayed by Democrats as a "do-nothing" Congress which had become arrogant and out-of touch with
"the common man."
Now Democrats say they hope to strike a more productive balance, giving chairmen some leeway as long as they operate
in accord with their fellow committee leaders and with the leadership’s approval.
“It is the right mix,” said Representative Barney Frank, (D-MA), and chairman of the Financial Services Committee. “We
have to work together and we don’t want to do things that are discordant, but the leadership should not micro-manage.”
By Cliff Montgomery - Jan.12th, 2007
One of the first actions performed by new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was something we previously hadn't seen from
Democrats. She summoned the new chairmen of five committees overseeing various aspects of Iraq policy to her office,
to review and coordinate Democratic plans for both hearings and inquiries on the increasingly unpopular war.
Such gatherings would have been unthinkable when Democrats last controlled the House. In the "old days" before the 1994
Republican takeover, it was all-powerful Democratic chairmen who too often ruled their committees with an iron fist,
delegating with little regard to the views of the speaker or others in the upper ranks.
But that was then; this is now. The new Democratic leaders of the House and Senate are seeking to avoid such actions by
forging a working relationship with the men and women who will actually write the bills and lead the Congressional
investigations, taking a page from the Republican playbook by acting as a more coordinated group, rather than as power
brokers ruling over personal fiefdoms.
But can it be done? Liberalism by definition allows greater liberty; but with that clear advantage there is always the
possibility of small groups going their separate ways--which is to a great extent how they lost Congress in '94. Top
lawmakers acknowledge it is essential for Democrats to keep the overarching goals of the party from clashing with the
objectives of more independent chairmen.
“The challenge of maintaining a coherent message--even though the power in the Senate is so diffuse--is probably our
major challenge,” Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), the Senate’s third-ranking Democrat, told the New York Times.
But as is always the case when one party trounces another in a major election, some on the winning side immediately begin
touting their private cause. Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the Finance Committee chairman who has been a thorn to
past Democratic leaders, says he will plunge ahead with hearings next week on giving the American people the power to
negotiate Medicare drug prices with pharmaceutical companies through the tool of their democratically-elected
government. It's a top Democratic priority this friend of the drug companies has viciously opposed, and one the House
had planned to speed through quickly.
“If we want to do legislation, I want to get the facts first,” said Baucus--which in Washington double-speak means he will do
all he can to bury the facts in committee.
In the House, Representative John Dingell (D-MI), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has broken with
fellow Democrats over the years on an issue likely to return in this session: imposing tougher mileage standards on
automakers.
“I am a member of the team and I am going to be a team player, but it is too early to see how it is going to develop,” Mr.
Dingell said of the new relationship between party leaders and congressional chairmen.
Mr. Dingell is a holdover from the days when dominant Democratic chairmen used their power as legislative forces in their
own right, and the party leadership as a nuisance to be negotiated on the way to the floor.
“We simply carried on a tradition which was there, which was accepted, which was proper and which, very frankly, worked,”
Mr. Dingell told the Times.
But in fact the delegation of such power to committee chairmen came with a price. In 1994 Republicans continually
portrayed Democrats as arrogant and out-of-touch with "the common man." Right or wrong, it was a winning formula that
year, and the G.O.P. rode that portrayal to victory in 1994.
Once installed, the new Republican leadership quickly centralized power in the offices of speaker, majority leader and whip.
They stripped committee chairmen of the power to control their own legislation, enacted term limits, and forced prospective
chairmen to prove their ideological purity to the party leadership and bolster their commitment with a record of campaign
contributions.
But such moves carried their own price. The Republican Congress of 1994-2006 found such changes made it much harder
to enact all but the most popular legislation. In an interesting irony, 2006 was the year in which Republicans were--right or
wrong--continually portrayed by Democrats as a "do-nothing" Congress which had become arrogant and out-of touch with
"the common man."
Now Democrats say they hope to strike a more productive balance, giving chairmen some leeway as long as they operate
in accord with their fellow committee leaders and with the leadership’s approval.
“It is the right mix,” said Representative Barney Frank, (D-MA), and chairman of the Financial Services Committee. “We
have to work together and we don’t want to do things that are discordant, but the leadership should not micro-manage.”