NEW LEADERSHIP
I am known, to the annoyance of many, as an advocate for new leadership within the Democratic party. I have tried to think about how to get my point through to people that do not agree with me. Maybe, with the current discussion of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker going on, I think I might have found a way to convey my reasoning that may well resonate with more folks.
Before I delve into all that, I want to make clear, I believe Nancy is an effective leader of the House. She understands the mechanics of the process may be better than anyone. While I am not a fan of the ACA myself (having been on it and had to deal with it, and still have my bank accounts drained for healthcare), I recognize the skill and talent it took for her to get it through the entire process to become law. I also recognize, despite its glaring failings, it is better than what came before.
I also hear nancy is genuinely a wonderful human being
I have a friend who grew up as a neighbor of someone who is a Republican that won a House seat in New Jersey, I believe when Nancy was last speaker, who reports that there is no nicer legislator in DC. She is genuinely friendly, welcoming and accommodating to her colleagues, even in the opposition. I think that is great.
I have never considered myself in her camp ideologically
I also must disclose that I have ideological differences with her. I think a true leader representing the interests of working people would have done something to protect the banks victims during the collapse for example. Instead, the bankers were left to collect their bonuses while they tossed their victims into the streets.
All that being said, my personal ideological predilections aside, I would be for a new Pelosi speakership if I thought it was simply a matter of needing someone to manage the House while we oust Trump and his ilk from power. But that is not the only thing going on here. The voters have been sending a message.
MY objection to pelosi as speaker again has nothing to do with republicans
It has nothing to do with what Republicans say about her. That seems to be the cudgel of choice to throw at anyone that raises an objection to another Pelosi speakership. I could really care less what Republicans have to say, and I can be quoted often saying we need to stop caring about Republicans say about us on a wide range of things. That includes simply keeping people in power because Republicans say mean things about them. That too is a form of letting Republicans make our choice.
Nancy history in leadership
Nancy has been the leader of House Democrats since 2003 either as Minority Leader or Speaker of the House. This is why I have reservations to the point I would prefer to see a different Speaker at this time.
Why do I say this. Because of what voters have been telling us for 12 years now.
The message from the voters, change is needed
In the election of 2006, Democrats won back the House. People gave Bush his chance to clean up his disastrous war and their patience finally broke. Democrats were ushered into power in a change election. Nancy wins the gavel as congress convenes in 2007.
In the election of 2008, Obama wins a sweeping victory in another change election, vanquishing both the standard bearers of both parties status quo to win on an inspiring message of change and hope. Nancy maintains the speakership and does manage a very complex time very well. She saved our financial system by savng the banks.
In the election of 2010, the problem is, no matter how well she did in saving the globe from a complete collapse of the global economy, it remains the banks were protected, got their bonuses, while millions of people were tossed into the streets and millions more lost their jobs and millions upon millions more lost their life savings. In that cycle it is not shocking we had another change election. Nancy is minority leader once again.
In the election of 2012, Obama holds enough of his coalition together to win re-election. Cracks are evident, but ignored. He lost the vote of 5 million voters without college degrees from his 2008 total. That cohort was his largest by far in 2008 and the losses were at similar rates no matter the race. So while 2012 was not technically a change election, a lot of people that voted for change by supporting Obama in 2008 checked out on us. Romney did not pick up most of those voters, they just dropped out. Nancy remains minority leader.
In the election of 2014, the new force in politics, the crazy tea party, solidifies power as people are still not satisfied with business as usual politics. Republicans forced into more hardline and untenable positions as a result. Voters are still looking for change, and continued growth of support of the Tea Party fits the ongoing cycle of change elections. Nancy remains minority leader.
In the election of 2016, well that was a change election, no doubt. People are so frustrated they are willing to let someone promising to actually destroy Washington and obviously incompetent enough to have a believable shot at doing it. Now he did not win that election with a huge upsurge in support from whites (he got the typical Republican white vote). We lost across the board. Another 4 million people without college degrees stopped voting for us (9 million total lost since 2008, ¼ of our largest voting cohort in 2008 left us, most did not go to Republicans). Some went to Trump, most did not. Nancy remains minority leader.
In the election of 2018, Democrats are swept into power in revulsion to Trump, a clear change election. Nancy is poised to take the gavel again.
7 change election cycles in a row
The voters are sending a clear message. They want a new direction. They want change, and yet we offer them the same leadership. This is not confined to Nancy of course. Schumer is the hand-picked successor, Tom Perez was recruited by the old guard leaders, all positions of power are retained by the people that had power, or their hand-picked successors throughout all of these 7 election cycles where voters are crying, begging, pleading, heck even willing to blow the system up for change.
One of the left’s principle critiques of Obama is that they supported his change message, and then he appointed people from the same old school of economic thought we were rejecting to all the key economic posts in his administration. So what he did maintained power for those that have had it within the party.
At some point, when voters vote for change 7 election cycles in a row over 12 years, we probably ought to at least consider changing something.
If Nancy wants to help the new leader, maybe she stays on as Majority Whip. Keeps her in that vote counting role while a new face assumes leadership. I just heard Marcia Fudge is getting “buzz on the hill” as a potential challenger. I need to learn a little more, but what I know of her is pretty fantastic. Given the voters cries for change, consistently, for 7 election cycles over 12 years, we have to at least back off a rush to crown nancy and consider some options.