What has happened since then? Most notably, Marcia Fudge has decided not to challenge Pelosi. Pelosi handled it in classic Pelosi fashion. Remember that Fudge never really had a case against Pelosi, and the only reason anyone would pick Fudge over Pelosi was identity politics. It was a silly stunt. So, Pelosi promised Fudge a subcommittee overseeing and attempting to rein in voter suppression across the states, which has occurred with increasing frequency since the Shelby County Supreme Court decision. Fudge will Chair the subcommittee. Nobody who takes issues of race seriously has a real case against Pelosi on policy. Pelosi demonstrates that, Fudge gets something in the deal that needs to happen anyway because the subcommittee ought to exist, and Fudge backs a Speaker who serves her policy interests without a needless challenge.
So, remember what I was saying about challenges to Pelosi? This fits what I was telling you. My description of the anti-Pelosi Democratic factions was that they consisted of left-wing posturers, "moderate" posturers, and people who just want to talk about change for the sake of change. The first two categories are just looking for ways to send signals, and that makes them bribable. What Pelosi did with Fudge? Political bribery. And the cool thing about it is that it's a bribe that Pelosi was happy to give! That's what makes Pelosi such a brilliant politician. She didn't give up anything. She didn't even do anything that would piss off anyone else in the Democratic caucus.
Oh, and those idiots who want to bring in a new leader just for the sake of newness? They can't win without a challenger, and by taking Fudge out of contention, she threw them for a loop.
Nancy Pelosi is a fucking badass. This is how it's done, folks. Find something Fudge wants that costs you nothing and that nobody in the caucus opposes, give it to her, take your opponent out of the contest in the bargain, and that's how you win.
Who is left? The Problem Creators Caucus. I know, they call themselves the "Problem Solvers Caucus," but if you tell me to call you, "Your Majesty," you can go fuck yourself. I wouldn't even call real royalty that. We fought a fuckin' war to get away from royalty. They don't solve problems. They create problems. Up is not down, black is not white, and "moderates" don't deserve respect. See my most recent rant. Mostly, what I think of "moderates" is what I think of Susan "dupeshit" Collins. Democrats have their own cadre of useless idiots. The Problem Creators.
Right now, a group of them says that they won't vote for Pelosi unless she backs a set of rule changes that will weaken majority party agenda control. OK, now that's just stupid. I wouldn't expect anything less from the Problem Creators, but it's a fundamental misunderstanding of a) how the House must operate, b) the strategic position of the Democratic Party, and c) the current state of the Republican Party.
a) The House simply cannot handle what would happen if you didn't have a mechanism to block consideration of bills. There are too many bills introduced, which are basically bullshit bills introduced by legislators who just want to tell someone, "hey, look what I did!" That mechanism, structurally, must be majoritarian. So, the majority party controls who gets consideration. The controls change over time based on party unity, but there needs to be control. Otherwise, the House would be overwhelmed by bullshit bills.
b) There is no point having the House if rules are changed in such a way as to let the GOP bring bills to the floor. OK, there's the possibility of oversight, but that ain't goin' nowhere, so what are these idiots trying to accomplish? That brings me to...
c) The idea that anything can be accomplished by talking to the party of Donald Trump, represented in the House by people like Steve King, Louis Gohmert and Greg Gianforte, fundamentally misses who these people are. To borrow a line from another Speaker of old, Thomas Reed, every time they speak, they subtract from the sum total of all human knowledge. And the Problem Creators want to spend more time talking to them. Personally, I like knowledge, I want more of it, and I don't see any value in talking to people like Louis Gohmert, except the entertainment value of listening to the crazy shit that comes out of his inbred mouth. Nor do I see any value in engagement with those who kowtow to Donald Trump. That includes not just Gohmert, but every single member of the House Republican delegation. Why would anyone in the Democratic Party want to empower them? Fuck empowerment. Empower this! By "this," I mean Nancy Pelosi. (You didn't think I was doing a "grabby" thing there, did you? See what Trump has done to your mind?)
What will the Problem Creators do? Mostly, they will probably back down. Higgins has already backed down. Moderates are intrinsically cowardly* critters. Pelosi bribed him with an infrastructure spending proposal. Again, nothing she opposes because Pelosi knows how this stuff works. And that leads to a general point about Pelosi.
Why is Pelosi so good at this? One of the arguments I made in my latest book, Incremental Polarization, is that party influence can come in two varieties: preference-deviating influence, and preference-preserving influence. Yes, that's ultra-pretentious terminology, but hey. I'm an academic, and when I'm publishing the, like, serious shit, I go for the pretentious verbiage. Academic presses like it. More importantly, peer review eats that shit up.
Anywho (another word I don't use in stuff I put up for peer review), when parties are pressuring a legislator to do something that conflicts with his sincere, personal policy preferences, that's what I call "preference-deviating influence." When they pressure legislators to do something that fits with their personal policy preferences, but that they have electoral reasons not to do, that's what I call "preference-preserving influence." So, if I have electoral incentives to vote no on an unpopular bill that I personally like, and the party puts pressure on me to vote yes, that's preference-preserving influence. But, if they tell me to vote no on a bill that I like, that's preference-deviating influence. My basic argument is that preference-deviating influence doesn't work that well. It is difficult to pull off, and ultimately self-defeating because you make too many enemies in the process. The most effective party leaders are the ones who focus on preference-preserving influence. The ones who unify a party that is being pulled in different directions by incentives to send stupid signals to stupid voters who don't get what's going on.
That's Pelosi. That's the Democratic Party. And that's what's going on right now. Pelosi has a bunch of posturing phonies and whiny, little cry-babies trying to figure out how to send some stupid signals to voters who aren't really paying close attention anyway. And she doesn't want to give up anything. So, she is bribing people with stuff that she is happy to provide anyway. Even with Higgins, she gave him something that she was happy to offer-- a promise on infrastructure spending.
Now, think of the contrast. Think of how hard this is. Does anyone seriously think that anyone not named Nancy Pelosi has the brains to handle this caucus? Who? Seth Moulton? No. None of these people know how the game is played. Nancy Pelosi does. Democratic Representatives not named "Nancy Pelosi" should be seen and not heard. Would it be nice if there were some deep well of talent to take over after she leaves? Yeah, probably. But there isn't. She's it. She's also the best. And she'll probably keep picking off the holdouts with the same techniques she has used so far.
*Minor note. I detest the American practice of labeling every contemptible act as "cowardly." I use the word only when it is specifically appropriate. The general practice of defining cowardice as a vice, all vice as interlinked, and hence all vice as cowardly just annoys the crap out of me. Cowardice is a distinct absence of courage. Higgins doesn't have the courage of his convictions. He said he would oppose Pelosi, but carrying out his threat would have been costly, and he wasn't willing to pay those costs. That is cowardice. Not every act you hate is cowardice. Don't pull that shit. It is intellectually and morally lazy to label every act you dislike as "cowardice." Yes, this is prompted by something, but I'm not getting into it.