By Noah Rothman
Thursday, January 02, 2020
Nancy Pelosi was doubtlessly one of the most influential
political personalities of 2019, just not in the way she’d expected at the
year’s outset.
As Hillary Clinton observed in TIME’s year-end
profile of the House speaker, Pelosi led her Democratic majority through an
active legislative period. Last year, the House passed bills addressing issues
ranging from gun control and healthcare to family leave and voting rights. It
was a valuable reminder of what Pelosi had hoped would be the Democratic
majority’s legislative legacy, in part because political observers had likely
forgotten about most of it. In truth, Pelosi’s carefully orchestrated plans for
2019 went off the rails early and never found their way back on track.
From the start of her second speakership, Pelosi pursued
an agenda that might not become law but would demonstrate how Democrats would
govern if once again given control of the Senate and the presidency. The
centerpiece of that legislative push, deemed House Resolution 1 to convey its
centrality, included provisions that would encourage automatic voter
registration and independent redistricting commissions, impose restrictions on
super PAC fundraising, and strengthen federal ethics laws. It was designed to
communicate that Democrats were the anti-corruption party—striking an implicit
contrast with the Trump administration and its perceived tolerance for abuses
of authority. But this quotidian agenda failed to inspire a new generation of
Democrats, who had developed a taste for radical change in the seven years
since Pelosi last held the speaker’s gavel.
By the time House Democrats passed this constitutionally
dubious set of provisions in March 2019, the Democratic Party’s anti-corruption
agenda had become an afterthought. The unanticipated celebrity of a triumvirate
of progressive House freshman drew the spotlight away from leadership and its
priorities and onto embarrassing debacles like the rollout of the Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez backed “Green New Deal.” That cornucopia of progressive economic
prescriptions dressed up as a climate bill so consumed media coverage of the
116th Congress that Pelosi was compelled to endorse a similar, albeit more
realistic, version of the bill. But that was just the beginning of what the New
York Times soon described as near “open warfare” between Pelosi and her
party’s progressive insurgents.
The speaker was soon confronted by a revolt within her
caucus over health-care legislation, too—an eventuality that must have come as
a surprise since she and others had convincingly argued that the Democratic
majority was partly attributable to the number of successful candidates who
campaigned on preserving Obamacare. But by March, more than 100 Democrats and
four presidential candidates were lobbying for a government takeover of the
health-insurance industry, and House insurgents sought to take that fight to
leadership. Pelosi, who had never made a secret of her antipathy toward
universalizing Medicare or the toll such a proposal would take on her more
vulnerable members, consented to congressional hearings on the issue (even as
her office lobbied
health-care policy groups against Medicare-for-all). For all of leadership’s
efforts to keep their most vulnerable member safe while appeasing her party’s
left flank, Pelosi was repaid by an effort by progressives to starve the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee of funds.
This ideological and generational struggle was soon
eclipsed by the theatrics surrounding the impeachment of the president, but
these were dramatics Pelosi had hoped to avoid. Robert Mueller’s probe of the
Trump campaign revealing that the president had sought (though failed) to
obstruct the investigation in concert with the White House’s refusal to allow
officials to testify about some leading questions temporarily included in the
2020 census amounted to a “constitutional crisis,” according to Rep. Jerold
Nadler. But Pelosi had already ruled impeachment out on perfectly logical,
though doubtlessly political, grounds. Her recalcitrance once again yielded the
wrath of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing. By September, when the
revelations involving Trump’s mishandling of relations with Ukraine emerged,
her resistance could no longer hold. It should be abundantly clear, though,
that Pelosi never formulated a strategy to impeach the president.
Democrats went ahead and passed articles of impeachment
even as the courts were adjudicating whether the extraordinary constitutional
process could compel the testimony of key witnesses like former White House
Counsel Don McGahn and National Security Adviser John Bolton. But once the
articles of impeachment passed and the venue in which that testimony would be
received effectively closed, the courts were left without guidance. Democrats
now confess that the process they rushed was, in fact, rushed. It’s incumbent
on the U.S. Senate to slow things down, they argue. At the same time, some
Democrat-led House committees are leaving open the possibility of passing more
articles of impeachment against the president, if only to maintain the fiction
that the process has escaped their control. But impeachment proceedings were
hastened because vulnerable Democratic members were discomfited by it, as
Pelosi originally feared they would be. This was the outcome she had always
hoped to avoid, but she failed.
Perhaps Nancy Pelosi is the beneficiary of the doubt.
When she wielded the gavel from 2007 to 2011, Pelosi had a demonstrated
capacity to control her members, compel tough votes, and advance her party’s
interests. Either that capacity has atrophied or the Democratic caucus has
become far more unruly than it once was. Regardless, political observers need
to update their assumptions about the speaker’s relative acumen. The firm hand
that once laid steady on the Democratic Party’s tiller is gone.
No comments:
Post a Comment