With the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives, one of the big issues hovering over the Democratic conference has been the question of leadership of the party, and I even got a request for this one. A bunch of Democratic candidates announced that they wouldn't support Pelosi for Speaker, so can she get the votes? Should she? What now?
As for the question of should she, the obvious answer is yes. Handing the gavel to anyone else would be an act of stupidity worthy of the Tea Party and the sacking of John Boehner. And Pelosi probably will be Speaker. Let's go through this, though. First, we must address why a bunch of Democrats have announced opposition to Pelosi.
First, a bunch of Democrats have let the GOP get in their heads. Republicans have spent more than a decade talking shit about Nancy Pelosi. They also took the majority of the House in 2010, and held it through 2018. Are these two observations related? The force of the GOP's trash-talking can have a powerful influence on the weak-minded, but no, these two observations are not related. Nancy Pelosi is a famous name. To political junkies. We know who she is, but we are also people who aren't swayed by petty trash-talking about how "San Francisco values" are oh-so-horrible. In the 2016 American National Election Studies survey, we asked about Paul Ryan, because he was Speaker. Only 54% of respondents, weighted, correctly recalled him as Speaker. Anyone who knows who the Speaker is just isn't someone who is persuadable. So, worrying about the GOP's rhetoric on San Francisco is just stupid.
The related point is that Republicans will trash-talk, and at this point, flat-out lie about anyone, so letting their trash talk dictate Democratic Speakers is just idiocy. Don't give lying, bullying assholes what they want. You just invite more lying and bullying. Fight back. Hard. And yet, a bunch of Democrats have let the GOP get in their heads. Oh, no! Republicans have trash-talked Pelosi! We can't pick her as Speaker! She's "polarizing!" News flash, folks. If Ronald Reagan came back from the dead, announced himself a Democrat, and the House made him Speaker (the Speaker, constitutionally, doesn't have to be a sitting member), the GOP would say, "we always hated you, you amnesty-granting tax-raiser! The 1982 tax increase was the most communist thing ever in American history!!!" Democrats would be foolish to let GOP trash-talk, or fear thereof, dictate their choices. If that's the strategy, they might as well hand the gavel to either McCarthy, Scalise or Jordan, but I'll get to that tomorrow.
Next, and relatedly, a bunch of the Democrats announcing opposition to Pelosi are just signaling "moderation." Look, folks, you know what I think of "moderates." We are supposed to heap praise and blessings on moderates. You know, like Strom Thurmond, back in the good ole' days. He was what used to make up that moderate center, where the parties overlapped. Racist shitbag. Or, we could talk about that useless idiot, Susan Collins. Moderates... I have no use for them. Anyway, if you want to signal that you aren't a lefty, you can defer to Republican trash-talk and oppose Nancy Pelosi, thereby showing your redneck constituents that you ain't no San Francisco you-know-what. I could make some really nasty comments about these people, but that's already implied, isn't it?
The irony is that on the other side of the ideological spectrum, you can get the left-wing Tea Party (basically, Sanders types) opposing Pelosi because they think she is somehow compromised, or not pushing hard enough, or... whatthefuckever. I'm relatively unsparing in my praise of Nancy Pelosi, but the one time I excoriated her was the stupidity of pushing for a shutdown on immigration. She was pushed by the left for that dead-end strategy. And they wanted more. There are some lefties who want Pelosi gone, so she's getting it from both ends. Left-wing teabaggers. Just what the Democratic Party needs.
And then, you have the time-for-a-change people. These are the people I just find the most insufferable. Nancy Pelosi has been at the top of the Democratic caucus for a decade and a half. A bunch of Democrats say it's just time for someone new. 'Cuz. This is just moronic. Being Speaker of the House is one of the most difficult jobs in the country. You need someone really smart to do it. You need someone who understands policy, understands political gamesmanship, understands the political dynamics of the caucus, and just gets shit done. Nancy Pelosi will go down in history as one of the best ever. And some of these twits just want to throw her out... 'cuz?!
So, the question is, will these people cave and vote for Pelosi? The basic points to understand are as follows. First, the selection of a Speaker is the selection of a disciplinary system. This is the basic argument that I made in my latest book, Incremental Polarization: A Unified Spatial Theory of Legislative Elections, Parties and Roll Call Voting. (Shameless plug, shameless plug). Legislators have competing incentives-- policy incentives and positioning incentives, and they have to decide what kind of disciplinary system they want, which will determine how they balance policy gains (or losses) with their electoral positioning. They do that through a Speakership contest, in the majority party. What Pelosi offers is victory. She wins. She twists arms until the Democrats win. Because unlike anyone else in that ineffectual party of dipshits, she knows what she's doing. You want to win? Shut up and do what Nancy Pelosi says, you whiny, little cry-babies. (I apologize for using the language of Trump, but it is appropriate here). Of course, a party that doesn't care about unification or victory could just pick an ineffectual c...ongressperson (HT: Samantha Bee) as Speaker and let the party dissolve into petty bickering and probably a bunch of identity politics finger-pointing, "calling out," and general snowflakism that won't lead anywhere. In other words, being Democrats. Or, you know, they could just give the gavel to Pelosi and fucking hold the party together.
And note that most Pelosi-detractors, in and out of Congress, are doing it for signaling purposes. You've got the scared-of-Republicans detractors and the left-wing teabaggers. That's basically just signaling. Would they prefer to signal either moderation or purity with opposition to Pelosi, or... get something? Then, you've got the fuck-winning contingent. What happens now?
With the signalers, we've seen this before. Bart Stupak. Remember him? This was the guy who said he could never vote for Obamacare because of some demands on abortion. He was a "moderate," representing a marginal district. Pelosi twisted his arm, along with a bunch of others, and they voted yes. Why? Because she fucking said so. And then Stupak resigned. This time? She has goodies to offer these loud-mouths. If they are interested in signaling, she can give them other opportunities to signal whatever they want. She can also arrange the vote such that a bare minimum vote for her, and let the most marginal vote against her. If it's just signaling, they're bribable, and Pelosi beat back more difficult signaling challenges with Stupak on Obamacare.
The time-for-a-changers have nowhere to go because they have no one to run. Hoyer doesn't know how to do the job, neither does Clyburn, and none of the children do either. Let's be clear on this. Passing Obamacare was the hardest thing I have ever seen. There were so many times it looked deader than John McCain, Trump's... potence, and American democracy that the fact that Pelosi pulled it off means that anyone who even contemplates giving the gavel to someone else should have their fucking head examined. This isn't fucking little league. You don't say that every kid needs a turn just 'cuz. Fairness and taking turns and blah, fucking blah.
Imagine your life is in danger. You need a bodyguard. Your current bodyguard has been with you for years, and is roughly as badass as James Bond. Do you say, "oh, fuck it. Time for a change. I can't find anyone nearly as good, but some rookie cop might like a pay raise, so let's replace James Bond with him? Taking turns is good!" No. Not if you value your life. Nancy Pelosi is to legislative politics as James Bond is to general badassery. I think that should be on the SATs. The time-for-a-change folk have a basic problem. They can't find anyone.
And that will bring me back to the basic point of my latest book. A leadership contest is a contest over leadership platforms. Nobody has anything to offer beyond Pelosi, which means they'll have a hard time finding an alternative.
And yet...
The stakes of this leadership election are remarkably low. By that, I mean that all the Democrats have to do is refuse to go along with whatever batshit insanity Trump tries to push, and as far as budgetary negotiations go, just hold firm on continuing resolutions with minimal changes from the current agreement. In other words, do nothing. How hard is that? It's sort of the default in Congress.
Well, it requires having a spine. Democrats aren't known for that. Except Pelosi. In 1995, when Gingrich took over as Speaker, he adopted a strategy of scorched earth opposition to Clinton. However, Clinton was a moderate, willing to deal, and deal he did. Hence, welfare reform. In 2011, Boehner and McConnell adopted a strategy of scorched earth opposition to Obama, and while Obama wasn't a moderate, he was a strategic fool who didn't understand what he was facing, so he dealt. Hence, the 2011 Budget Control Act. Trump is a different kind of fool. He won't deal, so there's no point in trying. There's no point in anything except scorched earth opposition. That, however, requires some will. Not a lot, and the left-wing teabaggers would be amenable to that with or without Pelosi. They just might not be as effective keeping the lily-livered cowards on board because they'd be too busy alienating them with "call-out" games, or some other form of left-wing purity test. (I write as I refer to the "moderates" as "lily-livered cowards." Why? Because I have no responsibility to do otherwise. There is freedom in being nothing but the peanut gallery.)
Still, there will be no legislation. Whatever left-wing dreams the liberal teabaggers have... ain't gonna happen. Impeachment? If either Pelosi or another Democrat doesn't stop it, it'll guarantee Trump's reelection, regardless of the economy, and remember that the Senate has zero chance of convicting him, no matter what happens over the next two-to-six-to-infinity years. The only real task for a Speaker now is making sure the Democrats hold together in opposition. That's still a challenge, though, and the only strategic brain in the party belongs to Nancy Pelosi. The signalers are bribable, the take-turns crowd has nobody, and that means she gets the gavel.
And then nothing happens because this is all a meaningless charade.
Tomorrow, I'll write about the even more insane and meaningless conflict on the Republican side!