Pelosi Working To Steer Democrats To Center
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is reportedly working to steer the Democrats to the center — to try and avoid precisely the kind of thing Rep. Charles Rangel is attempting to do with his use of bringing up re institution of the military draft as an ideological political bludgeon. The Boston Globe reports:
Anxious to chart a centrist course with Democrats’ new majority in Congress, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top deputies are busily working in private and public to rein in the liberal ambitions of some senior party heavyweights –including proposals to reinstate the military draft and end the Pentagon’s ban on gays in uniform.
This is the key test for the Democrats. The American public voted for divided government once again. Are the Democrats going to act like responsible guardians of the voters’ concerns and provide serious, vigorous Congressional oversight, alternative policies that will increase substantive policy debate, and a higher-profile other-alternative media voice now that they have the Congressional power soapbox?
Or will the Democrats quickly become like kids who were kept off candy being given the keys to enter the candy shop whenever they want?
Pelosi has urged House Democrats, including incoming committee chairmen, to use the first weeks of next year’s congressional term to focus exclusively on proposals on which the party is unified and legislative goals that are within reach, according to Pelosi allies and aides.
It’s the same strategy, of sorts, that George Bush used when he first got in: it’s picking some issues to debut on the American scene and making sure you have the VOTES to get the issues to fall your way. This is why Pelosi’s recent effort to plop Jack Murtha into the slot as her second in command was such a poor decision; she didn’t have the votes.
One of the first things Pelosi did was make it clear that Rangel’s idea of re-instituting the draft was a nonstarter:
Yesterday, Pelosi and the incoming House majority leader,Representative Steny Hoyer, quashed talk of reinstating the draft one day after Representative Charles Rangel said he will file a bill to make that happen. Rangel, a New York Democrat, is in line to become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, one of the most powerful posts in Congress.“The speaker and I have discussed scheduling; it did not include that,” said Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat.
Bottom line message: No way, Jose…
And impeachment? She won’t make some liberal talk show hosts (particularly some of the local hosts and callers on Air America stations’ local versus network shows) very happy:
Already, House Democratic leaders have extracted a promise from the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, to rule out impeaching President Bush. Conyers is the lead sponsor of a bill that would investigate whether to recommend “grounds for possible impeachment.”
And in the when-will-they-ever-learn department, she has also moved quickly to try and short-circuit those who want to immediately turn to a key gay issue. In case you don’t remember, Bill Clinton’s focus on gays in the military when he first took office is now viewed as a huge political mistake because it gobbled up some momentum, decreased his political capital, and made some Americans question his list of priorities:
Pelosi has also tempered hopes of reversing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on the service of gays and lesbians in the military, after two key Democrats — Representatives Martin T. Meehan of Lowell and Barney Frank of Newton — said last week that they want to repeal the policy.Though Pelosi believes homosexuals should be able to openly serve, she has made clear that she believes Democrats have more urgent national-security priorities — including changing course in Iraq and investigating war-related contracting.
The list Pelosi is drawing up is a markedly centrist one, one that has the possibility of expanding or maintaining the Democratic party’s winning election coalition rather than splintering it:
Pelosi and Hoyer outlined an agenda yesterday for early next year that Pelosi said will relieve “the middle-class squeeze.” It avoids hot-button issues such as tax cuts, gay rights, and abortion for popular issues such as a higher minimum wage, more affordable student loans, and congressional ethics reform.“These issues are bipartisan in nature,” Pelosi said. “That’s why we recommended them. We thought they were areas that are relevant to the lives of the American people, and that would have bipartisan support.”
So perhaps stubbing her political toe badly with the Murtha episode — and getting a thumbs-down on that issue from many Democrats who in-effect sent her a message that there are limits to the kind of control she can assert — Pelosi is as politically nimble as some suggested a few weeks ago.
The key to long-term growth for a political party is capturing the center and adding independent and centrist votes along with reliable party partisan votes. (If you don’t believe it, then just read this book.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
15 Responses to “Pelosi Working To Steer Democrats To Center”
This is so exciting to me. Imagine both parties trying to prove which was more centrist, balanced and reasonable.
There is a way we can help. Recruiting candidates for the 08 congressional elections is already beginning. It would be helpful to share what we are hearing about Centrist Candidates so we can steer early money to them.
Is anyone else thinking this way?
Those are good signs, but I think her next test with regards to holding a more centrist agenda will be the appointment of the Intelligence Committee chair. If she goes ahead with the formerly impeached Alcee Hastings over the more experienced Jane Harmon, I think we will have to question how serious she is about a Centrist agenda.
DADT should go away but it might make sense to pursue more easily-achieved goals first.
I’m glad to see they are acting reasonable. I hope this continues and they get somethings done. While I’m not the critic of the war that many others are sometimes with anything someone coming in fresh with a different outlook and really turn things around. While it might not of played well to the hard core left if they had worked from that angle they might not of had so much concern from the center about what they might do. I imagine they want to make sure they don’t screw up for 2008.
A wise decision by Nancy.
I think Pelosi is hearing the same things from her base and her advisors: don’t blow it. It’s about priorities, and there is much to do, much damage to undo. The Dems need to keep the voters’ wishes in mind and avoid pandering to the fringe. The GOP will continue to show it is still “staying the course” that turned voters off in the first place. Increasingly, it looks like the GOP IS its fringe.
No. Voting on issues, one way or the other, seems like a far more sensible way to choose a candidate, rather than picking the person that panders to both sides for the sake of moderation.
nixing DADT, tax cuts and whatnot are like candy, you really like how they taste but they are dessert, first you have to eat your fish and veggies.
DADT is a bad policy that doesn’t even do much to prevent gays from serving, it just makes their lives more miserable, but priority must be given to things that are going to a-help the most people and b- actually can be implemented/passed.
I think Eric has it mostly right. She should have 2008 in mind. And she should definitely not be concerned with the desires of the hardcore left.
Chuut, I’m going along with the idea that the Jane Harmon issue is more of a personal one rather than a calculated political move. Not saying it is a good decision, but that it’s not directly related to the direction she wants the dems to take on the whole.
I agree. The type of moderation that should be encouraged is not moderation to be moderate in order to get votes. The type that should be encouraged is what I consider to be a type of pragmatic moderation, where one is moderate simply because one is thinking for oneself about each individual issue and is voting based on what he or she feels is in the best interest of his or her constituents. This isn’t moderation to be moderate. At times, it may lead to a very hard line approach and even an approach that some would consider far right or far left. However, it is not the hyper-partisan behavior we have been seeing recently because each issue is weighed on its own merits and a decision is made not based on what the party line is but what the individual feels will best serve those who he or she serves.
Kevin, I think you hit it right on. As with the Murtha thing, this seems to be about supporting a personal friend. It seems that the Dems as a whole, notwithstanding a few individuals of course, seem to be taking a pragmatic approach to the issues possibly keeping in mind what will help them garner votes two years from now.
Of course, when Bush does things like this with personnel choices, those on the right call it honorable loyalty and those on the left call it cronyism. I have a hunch we’re going to see both sides flip-flop if Pelosi shows the same trait for much longer.
Personally, my take is no matter who does it, it’s cronyism. No matter who is making the choices, they should be made based on merit, not on who your best buddy is.
Voting on issues, one way or the other, seems like a far more sensible way to choose a candidate, rather than picking the person that panders to both sides for the sake of moderation.
How about the politician that tries to find common ground, which is what it sounds like the goal of bring up “centrist” issues seems to be? The job of a politician is supposed to be representing the people, and since people will always disagree then a big part of that job becomes finding middle ground that both sides can agree on.
An example of this that I’ve always liked, even though it is outside of the political arena, is the grassbanking relationship the Nature Conservancy has developed with ranchers. For years environmentalists have tried to pass laws that ranchers said hurt their ability to make a living. As a result, two sides that shared a lot in common became enemies. The concept of “grassbanking” was an attempt to find compromise. The idea began when the Nature Conservancy purchased a 60,000 acre ranch in Montana, and then allowed neighboring ranchers to graze cattle on the ranch for reduced grazing fees provided the ranchers agreed to follow certain conservation practices on their own ranches. The result was a new option for ranchers, resulting in economic benefits for ranchers and the protection of vastly more than just 60,000 acres for environmentalists. Both sides won, and both sides are working together now to improve the relationship.
To me, solutions like this one should be the goal of a professional politician. People are always going to disagree, but a politician’s job should be looking for solutions that work for both sides whenever possible. Unfortunately the model of the past several years has been to ram your own ideas through, forgetting that a significant percentage of the country disagrees. Hopefully with the pledge to promote “centrist” policies with bipartisan support we can begin the process of returning to politics as compromise.
There is plenty of time for controversial issues, this is a good step forward. Starting with these proposals Pelosi can build working relationships and get some indication on Republican reaction, esp. the White House. The reaction will be the interesting part, after years of demonizing Democrats how will they deal with them?
Paul in Austin I agree. If I were American I would be willing to set something up like that with other interested people.
Moderation for the sake of moderation is not good, but moderation for the sake of getting things done that need to be done is necessary.