Origins
Who first attached the tag #fivewhiteguys to the five Democrats mounting a Pelosi opposition movement? It’s hard to say.
Its use expanded rapidly following a November 13th piece on Esquire.com by liberal commentator Charlie Pierce. The op-Ed was snarky and sarcastic, offering praise to both Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, while criticizing the fledgling anti-Pelosi movement run by five incumbent Democrats.
For those who are offended by the flippant nature of the #fivewhiteguys tag, I’d point out that in the same piece Pierce refers to Paul Ryan as “the zombie-eyed granny starver from Wisconsin.” It’s that sort of article, and the choice of words should probably not be treated as some sort of serious manifesto on the nature of race or gender in America.
At any rate, the hashtag resonated, and began working its way into everyday use on sites like Daly Kos. It has almost certainly gained popularity as quickly as it has because it references a minor controversy from last year, when Leader Pelosi criticized the GOP’s DACA negotiation team as being run by “five white guys.”
When it appeared that Pelosi was once again going to do battle with a team of opponents, and when someone noticed that, indeed, that opposition is led by five individuals who are all men and who are all Caucasian, the Zeitgeist felt that it was appropriate to resurrect the #fivewhiteguys tag for the occasion.
Note: I’m going to use #FWG and #fivewhiteguys interchangeably. I’m lazy.
So who are these Reps?
I’m not going to claim to know much about any of the five Reps leading this opposition movement, or to have strong feelings about them either way. They’re led by Massachusetts Rep Seth Moulton, who was first elected in 2014. Then there’s Ohio’s Tim Ryan, Colorado Rep Ed Perlmutter, Kurt Schrader of the great state of Oregon and Bill Foster of Illinois.
They are mostly New Democrat Coalition members who have moderate voting records, and a history of supporting bipartisan compromises. What unites them now is that they all want to see Democrats select a new Speaker. I wouldn’t presume to know all of their motives, but given their histories I would take them at their word that their opposition is driven largely by the feeling that Pelosi has become too polarizing a figure to engender bipartisan cooperation in the chamber.
In their endeavor to unseat Pelosi, they’ve taken it upon themselves to lead the opposition movement. They are currently currying favor from like-minded Reps, and seeking support from incoming freshmen, many who ran on opposition to Pelosi.
So, in reaction to these five specific individuals working to mount their opposition campaign, many writers...including Daily Kos staff writers...have begun using the #fivewhiteguys tag.
Reactions
The use of the #fivewhiteguys tag has drawn some interesting (and fervent) criticism from the DKos community. There have been many, many comments...and more than one diary...criticizing the tag, and asking for it to be retired.
I’m not going to defend the tag as good or bad messaging...I personally stray away from using Twitter tags in my writing. To me, doing so tends to overly simplify issues. But I can see cases where they are quite effective, as with #bluewave.
But the opposition to the use of #fivewhiteguys centers around a couple of core arguments:
- It offends people that the opposition is characterized by race.
- It offends people that the opposition is characterized by gender.
- It offends people that the opposition is characterized as only five individuals.
- It offends people that Democrats are calling other Democrats names...or being flippant toward them.
I can see those points, and I think it warrants a discussion. Why are Pelosi supporters rallying behind this tag? Is it helpful for them to do so? What are they trying to say in doing so?
When opposition crosses a line
The first thing that I think we need to address is that, indeed, #FWG is being used angrily by Pelosi supporters. There’s little debate that anyone using the tag is either suggesting that Pelosi should be elected speaker, or that the opposition movement is out of line...and usually both.
Maybe they have a case, and maybe they don’t. But why are Pelosi supporters angry about the opposition?
The election for Speaker is an oddity in our political system. The majority party uses the process to essentially “rig” the system and ensure that a member of their caucus wins. Doing so requires the caucus to meet behind closed doors, select a candidate, and then unify behind them in the House vote, ensuring that they win a majority share. I’m not sure that this is what the framers thought would happen...but I could be wrong.
Regardless, we accept the process as ethically acceptable because we consider a party winning a majority of House seats to be a mandate for them selecting the Speaker. This creates a two-tier election where (in this case) a Democratic Speaker candidate first needs to win a simple majority within the Dem caucus, and then needs to win a simple majority on the floor of the House.
This is where Pelosi opposition runs into a very significant hurdle. If there are 235 House Democrats in the 116th Congress, Nancy Pelosi will very easily win 118+ votes in the caucus meeting to become the Dem nominee. In order to successfully oppose Pelosi, her detractors have to figure out a scheme so that winning a majority of the votes doesn’t make Pelosi the nominee.
And that’s why Pelosi supporters are pissed.
This idea that a candidate should not be the nominee if they have a majority of the Dem caucus votes flies in the face of everything that we believe about fair, open democracy. It’s a process by which a minority attempts to manipulate things to override the majority.
Sure, we sometimes have protections from majority rule...but this isn’t like those. What the opposition is doing is more akin to if, in the 2016 primary (yes, I went there), the super delegates stepped in and said that they didn’t want Clinton and they didn’t want Sanders, and they got to demand their own nominee to go to a vote on the floor.
That would be...controversial, lol. If the supers had schemed to deny the nomination to either Clinton or Sanders when either had a majority of total delegates, something would have been burned down in protest. Probably a lot of things.
The reason that this scenario would strike us as morally impermissible is because the super delegates would be abusing their power in order to manipulate the outcome in a way that offered them a disproportionate say in the matter. Likewise, if a handful of Democrats use the Speaker election process to override the majority, this would be similarly unacceptable. They can have one vote each...they shouldn’t get to speak for the entire caucus.
So yes, Pelosi supporters are angry, because most any group of supporters would be angry if a minority schemed to block the will of the majority in what we perceive to be a democratic process.
So that’s the “five” part of #FWG
One of the reasons that the tag resonates is because it underlines that the opposition to Pelosi is a minority voice. The use of “five” serves two purposes. It both suggests that the leadership of the movement is a tiny minority, and that the movement itself is a small minority (both which are true).
Some Kossacks have pointed out that using “five” in the tag misrepresents the opposition because there are (probably) more than five Dems opposed to Pelosi. That’s a valid point...but I’m not sure that it’s going to get much traction. Pelosi’s supporters will continue to be dismissive of her opposition and paint them as a minority...just as her opposition will claim to have an actual mandate. That’s politics.
For me personally, I am entirely non-offended that “five” is being used this way. It refers to the leadership of the opposition, who are in fact five individuals. When the “Gang of Eight” meet, I don’t get upset at the number eight being used to represent a much larger number of individuals, who those eight people represent.
But why “white guys?”
The criticisms over the representation of the opposition are probably more deeply rooted in offense over the reference to the opposition being “white guys.” That is understandable...we are all really sensitive about identity in politics right now.
But I think that Kossacks criticizing the tag have gone a little overboard. There are claims that the term is sexist because it insinuates that 1.) the opposition is entirely male and 2.) men shouldn’t have a say in this process. The same is true of claims that the tag is racist.
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy these arguments. I think the outrage over this is being exaggerated by emotions over the Speaker election itself...meaning that I think people are looking for reasons to be offended.
Pelosi supporters who use #FWG are clearly (CLEARLY) not suggesting that men or caucasians are inferior, nor are they suggesting that these groups should not have a say in the matter. I don’t think they’re even trying to suggest that the entire opposition skews male and white — I think they’re simply trying to point out that this is a movement led by five individuals who are all white and who are all men.
And I think that this fact is relevant...but why?
The 2019 Dem caucus is going to be majority-female and minority. Having an opposition mounted by leaders who are all white men...and who are white men who are circumventing democracy in order to achieve their goal...is just terrible optics.
It signifies that even when women and minorities win a majority of seats at the table (those seats having been won dominantly through the votes of women and minorities), this doesn’t really matter because white male legislators feel that they can step in and override the wishes of that new, diverse majority. That just doesn’t sit well.
But there’s another reason that Pelosi supporters have adopted the tag, I think. The opposition leaders not only feel that they have a right to override the majority — they are overriding the majority following a midterm outcome in which Nancy Pelosi’s leadership helped foster the biggest Dem wave in a generation.
The DCCC NAILED THIS ONE. I don’t care what anyone says about ideology or issues or anything else, if the DCCC’s job was to deliver as many House seats as possible, they did it, and they did so under Pelosi’s leadership. And it’s not as if this was unclear to the electorate — a LOT of this election was about giving the Democrats a majority based on Pelosi’s leadership. The issue was so widely and deeply addressed, that we cannot argue that part of the Democratic mandate was a mandate for Pelosi to remain in charge. That is what Republicans said should not happen...and that’s what voters said should.
So yes, it’s a little off-putting that Democrats have a woman leader who just delivered a spectacular victory, and that a group of white men believe that they’re entitled to block her election as Speaker. It is difficult not to view this as the same sexist garbage that women have to put up with across our society — no matter how great you are at what you do, some dick can step in and claim that it wasn’t good enough. Even if this isn’t a motive behind the opposition, it sure looks like a possible motive, and in politics appearance matters.
The ongoing use of #fivewhiteguys
I would personally not use #FWG...I'd just feel silly if I did, because it's a pretty silly tag, inspired by a hamburger joint and meant to offer criticism on multiple levels.
But I do think that the criticism of the opposition is warranted. I think that it's untoward for a tiny minority of Democrats to try to subvert the majority. And I think it is indeed notable that the leaders of this minority are white men, who are a small part of a much more diverse caucus, and who are mounting their opposition despite a spectacular victory by the sitting leader. It's just kinda stinky.
So it makes sense to me that Pelosi supporters are angry, and it makes sense that they would seek out and embrace messaging the efficiently and succinctly conveyed the reasons for their anger.
I can see why the expression of this anger perturbs some...but I think it's also pretty self evident that the anger is being directed at a very specific group of people for a very specific reason, and is not intended to denigrate a broader group of people. If the use of #FWG seems silly, then in my opinion offense over it is ten times sillier.
As for the [UNSTATED NUMBER] of [UNKNOWN RACE] [DISAVOWED GENDER] leaders of the Pelosi opposition, ha, I understand that they feel they have limited options and really want to push their agenda on this. It’s tough being outnumbered. But if you are truly outnumbered in that caucus vote, you need to shut the hell up and sit the hell down.