Yes, Chuck Schumer should take Harry Reid’s job.
Here is one of the more baffling aspects of the modern Democratic Party:
It is a largely urban, multi-ethnic and gender-diverse coalition.
But for half a century, the party’s leadership in the Senate has been made up exclusively of white men from rural states, where the Democratic agenda is increasingly unpopular.
The two standard-bearers for this tradition are Tom Daschle and Harry Reid.
Despite being one of the most powerful men in Washington, Daschle was voted out of office by voters in South Dakota in 2004.
Reid flirts with the same fate currently in Nevada.
Before them, the Democratic Party’s leadership in the Senate came from Maine, West Virginia, and Montana.
There are historic reasons for this “small state” dominance of a “big state” party — but the logic for a Reid-Daschle style of leadership is fading fast.
Once upon a time, some small states sported serious progressive movements, especially in places like the Dakotas.
Grange-style activists could still support a serious center-left candidate who was generally in sync with his party’s national agenda.
What’s more, thirty years ago, the cultural and political divide between urban and much of rural America wasn’t quote so powerful.
In those days, small-state Senators also simply had to do far less to get re-elected.
Sitting Senators were rarely challenged and rarely unseated, especially when they had only a few hundred thousand voters to keep happy through pork-and-constituent programs.
Finally, the weird structure of the Senate has meant that there have traditionally been a lot of rural Democrats.
Those small-staters don’t represent many actual people. Harry Reid’s entire state population could fit within a single borough of New York City.
But because they get equal voting power even within their party caucus, the rural bloc could often sway the pick of the Democratic Party’s minority- or majority-leader.
What’s clear is that this approach no longer works.
The Democratic agenda is toxic in most of rural America. And no Democratic Senator is ever secure in a state where there is a significant pool of small-town voters.
This year, even Russ Feingold is vulnerable in Wisconsin.
By choosing small-town politicians to lead their Senate caucus, Democrats by definition are putting some of their weakest, most vulnerable members out front.
That’s a hard way to advance an agenda.
It’s worth noting that the Republicans learned this trick a long time ago: They choose leaders from the safe and cozy heart of their geographic base, which means (in the case of the GOP) going Southern.
As a consequence, their leaders are free to campaign, raise cash, and work on policy — without spending months and years fighting for their political lives, the way Daschle and Reid have been forced to do.
Even if Reid survives in November, it’s difficult to imagine him re-emerging as a strong, confident leader capable of shepherding a national agenda.
Which means that it’s time for a big-state urban Senator like New York’s Charles Schumer to make a serious, pull-no-punches bid for leadership.
Obviously, this kind of additional clout would be good for New York.
But Schumer is also a logical national candidate for majority- or minority-leader.
First, because his seat is absolutely 100% secure. Barring scandal, Chuck Schumer will be Senator as long as he wants to be Senator.
Secondly, he shepherded the national push to rebuild the Democrats’ majority.
That means he has strong ties to state party organizations across the country and knows the sensitivities of politicians and voters outside the Northeast.
Because Schumer’s own state includes huge swaths of small towns Upstate — indeed, our rural population in New York is much bigger than the rural population in Nevada or South Dakota — he’s learned how to communicate with that culture.
Schumer has emerged as one of the most knowledgeable Democratic lawmakers on farm- and rural-development policy.
He’s also far more media- and message-savvy than Reid, who seems to lose ground even when his party is passing major legislation.
What’s certain is that a politician like Schumer would be far more in sync with the message, the policies, and the demographics of the modern Democratic Party.
I totally agree great points.
As usual, I really don’t care but I’ve grown really tired of Schumer. He should stop working for a living and take up golf or fishing or anything where he isn’t constantly trying to get on TV.
Pete –
Actually, this meme about Schumer – that he’s camera-hungry – is also a good fit for a majority leader. In this role, he would be in the logical spot for a guy with his temperament…
–Brian, NCPR
Smart post, Brian.
chuck has been great for us in the north. even though a registered republican, i would vote for him in a heartbeat. but please don’t tell the 11 GOP county (without) heads.
FYI…chuck was spotted on vaca around lake placid this month. he could go anywhere, but he comes up north.
“And no Democratic Senator is ever secure in a state where there is a significant pool of small-town voters.”
What about Vermont?
Good logical argument.
Scratchy –
People think Vermont is a bedrock liberal state, but the picture is more complicated than that – in large part because of more conservative, rural voters.
Patrick Leahy is the only Democrat ever elected to the Senate from Vermont.
Independent Bernie Sanders is also a progressive, describing himself as a Democratic-Socialist.
He won election with 57% of the vote — solid but not unassailable.
Both men draw the lions share of support from more urban, Burlington-like areas.
Prior to Leahy and Sanders, every US Senator from Vermont has been a Republican (or a Whig, or a Free Soiler, but you get the point).
The state also has a long history of electing Republicans as governor.
Howard Dean took office only after Republican Richard Snelling died of a heart attack.
His successor, Republican Governor Jim Douglas, has won three terms.
–Brian, NCPR
Would Schumer want the job?
“Reid” and “Pelosi” have become dirty words in today’s political climate.
As much as Schumer loves the spotlight, I’m not sure he’d want to throw himself into the fray…
You read it here first, If the Dems need a new leader next Congress, it will be Dick Durbin from ILL.
I like Chuck Shumer but I’m sure he’s bruised a few colleagues with his sharp elbows. (plus, of course, Durbin is next in line.)
The majority leader does a lot of things behind the scenes that we never see of hear about. I think this is why dems choose a small state guy. There are just less issues to worry about. NY has too much going on and I fear we would lose out by his split attention. I do think he could fight back a little harder than Reid.
BTW – Delay was the majority leader and lost in TX. Hassert was minority leader but I’m not sure what happened to him. Haven’t heard much lately.
Actually neither DeLay or Hastert was defeated. Both resigned their seats..DeLay because of indictments in various scandals and Hastert after losing his speakership when the Dems took over in 2007
Brian says,
“First, because his seat is absolutely 100% secure.”
This is a problem we have got to deal with for both Republicans and Democrats.
The incumbents have been successful, over time, in rigging the game to favor incumbents.
Time for term limits on Congress.
Brian Mann,
I’ve visited Vermont many times so I know the state.
With respect to Vermont, the state USED to be a Rockefeller Republican state but has been increasingly Democratic ever since the 1960s. Obama actually did better in Vermont than in NY.
Burlington is fairly small: about 40,000. It’s more of a moderate sized college town than an urban area. And while it does have several suburbs, 3/4 of the state lives outside of Burlington’s county of Chittendan (and there are several rural areas in Chittendan like Underhill and Jericho.)
According to CNN, Sanders won 65% of the vote in the last election.
http://images.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/VT/S/01/index.html
He carried every county. That’s pretty good for an avowed socialist running as independent.
And GOP Governor Jim Douglas is very personable and quite moderate: leans left on many social issues and a bit to the right on economic issues (far from being a tea partier). Electing a GOP governor is very different from electing a Democratic governor as a GOP governor can dissassociate himself from the national party. I know lots of Democrats who would never vote for a GOP senator, but did vote for Pataki.
And another thing with the rural thing: how did Obama do better in Clinton, and Franklin counties than he did in Erie (Buffalo), Monroe (Rochester), and Onondaga (Syracuse)? He did quite well in St. Lawrence and Essex, as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/election/uscounties.html
I always liked Tom Dashle. But then again the Democrats shouldn’t listen to me, just like the Republicans shouldn’t listen to those who usually vote Democratic.
It is time for a more bipartisan approach to government. Let’s go back to the times where we had a democratic majority (or republican) and had a leader that was from the other party. Schumer is not the bipartisan answer. The president has asked for a more bipartisan approach let’s do it. Brian what do you think? If the democrats what participation from both sides of the aisle it i time to extend a branch. The alternative it to stay as encamped as we are now. My guess is that neither side (despite the rhetoric) is genuine.
Sorry missed a few typos above.
“what” is “want” and “i” is “is”.