Yes, Democrats face a leadership crisis
Can Nancy Pelosi lead Democrats and sell their ideas to the American people? (Photo: Wikipedia)
In the wake of the collapse of the gun control push earlier this month, a lot of words have been ginned over the shortcomings of Barack Obama’s leadership in Washington.
Howard Kurtz wrote in the Daily Beast that the President had “stalled out.” Maureen Dowd in the New York Times excoriated Obama for failing to understand how power works in the nation’s capital, writing:
How is it that the president won the argument on gun safety with the public and lost the vote in the Senate? It’s because he doesn’t know how to work the system. And it’s clear now that he doesn’t want to learn, or to even hire some clever people who can tell him how to do it or do it for him.
I think there are sharp limitations to this argument. As I wrote last week, Obama faces unprecedented levels of partisanship and divisiveness at a time when the institutions we use to govern our nation are profoundly dysfunctional.
The “system” Dowd talks about just isn’t the same system that Lyndon Johnson worked to push through the Civil Rights Act, or that Richard Nixon steered toward creation of the Environmental Protection Agency.
And the kind of bipartisanship that produced those landmark achievements is a thing of the past.
But with those caveats firmly in place, I think it’s fair to say that Democrats face a troubling leadership crisis, one that goes well beyond the Oval Office.
Democrats have chosen to stick by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, despite the fact that she is polling at only 31% — well behind Republican leader John Boehner, and well behind the ideas and policies supported by her own party.
Defenders of Pelosi will argue that much of the vitriol aimed at her is unfair, or that it hinges on the fact that she is a woman in a position of power that has long been a male bastion.
Fair enough.
But it’s hard to make a convincing case that the House leader from San Francisco has the sort of public persona or communications skill that might overcome those hurdles, allowing her to make a winning case for the Democrats.
Democrats have also continued to sail under the leadership of majority leader Harry Reid in the US Senate. Reid’s shortcomings are even more obvious than Pelosi’s.
He is a white, socially conservative, pro-life Mormon from rural Nevada, hemmed in and pressured constantly by his unpopularity in his own state. His oratorical skills are the culinary equivalent of dry oatmeal.
In a party defined by urban multiculturalism, outreach to Hispanics, and to young people and women, Reid appears often to be dragging along behind the Democratic movement.
All of which would have been fine in the pre-Newt Gingrich era, when congressional leaders mostly operated behind the scenes, working the levers of power in relative anonymity.
But these days, that doesn’t cut it. Reid and Pelosi need to hold their own on the Sunday talk shows, and in public appearances. They need to help craft Democratic ideas into the kind of narrative that makes sense to average Americans.
Even as Democrats have won big elections — and pushed through some big, important legislation — their leaders have failed to offer that kind of, well, leadership.
Those shortcomings haunted the party during the gun control debate. They may well trip up the next big fight over immigration.
Those who look for leaders will forever be lost.
I dont know about that Brian. The job of those congressional leaders is to keep their coalitions together and get stuff done, not be popular at the national level. Nancy Pelosi was instrumental in getting the health care legislation passed. None of the national party leaders, Democrats or Republicans, are popular nationally, partially because they are demonized by the opposition party as a fundraising strategy. Congress itself is incredibly unpopular. They are never going to “sell” anything. This was Obama vs the gun lobby, and the gun lobby won. But the gun lobby is pretty good.
Is it not absurd that purportedly intelligent homo sapiens require “leadership” in the form of “leaders” whom are very proficient at “gaming” the system, kinda like the too big to fail folks who own 95%+ of the nations wealth conning those of us who own 5%- of the wealth into bailing them out, to have any chance of passing legislation which 80%+ of the US populace endorse?
Popularity aside, the leaders of both parties in both houses of congress seem to suffer from leadership deficit disorder. The one area where the Republicans excel is in opposition to anything Obama wants, a personal vendetta that began as soon as he won election the first time and has continued unabated. If only there could be a “gang of 8” or 12 or whatever across party lines that would go an end run around the leadership to get things done but alas, it seems most members are content to wait for the leaders to tell them what to do. I wish when I was working for DOL I could have been paid so much while taking so little responsibility for accomplishing what I was hired to do.
There is a long, storied history of congressional leaders who were able to think big, motivate the public, and work a very complex system. Sam Rayburn, Lyndon Johnson, Newt Gingrich.
Some presidents have been able to move major legislation by sheer power of personality alone – Franklin Roosevelt is the great example.
But that’s damn rare. Go watch the movie “Lincoln” and you’ll see that in order to push emancipation, our arguably greatest president needed a brilliant cadre of “fixers” in Congress.
This essay focuses on the Democratic leadership deficit, but I think it’s clear that a similar void exists on the right.
John Boehner and Mitch McConnnel have never demonstrated that kind of big picture, move-the-needle vision.
Finally, I’ll point out that Obama pushed through healthcare legislation, but only after winning huge majorities in Congress, and only by the thinnest of margins.
That situation won’t exist again in his second term. So he’ll need someone in Congress to help him get things done. Can Pelosi and Reid pull that weight? I’m skeptical.
–Brian, NCPR
Earmarks are gone so its hard to pressure the congress persons. I dont know if there are any sticks either for arm-twisting. There are committee assignments that can be used. There is also no middle left. Its pretty tough for congressional “leaders” to do anything but block stuff.
I was surprised to hear that Baucus was not running again? Obviously he didn’t cave to political pressure or to the gun lobby? He had nothing to lose or gain by his no vote.
I have always found it odd that Pelosi is in the position she is in. She strikes me as someone that is terribly nervous when she is speaking publicly despite the fact she has been in the spotlight forever. But it appears not to have hurt her rise to power. I admire her conviction.
I think Peter has it. The Founders set up the system with many checks and balances to favor legislative inaction in order to prevent tyranny by both elites or the the mob. The 60 vote rule and elimination of earmarks makes it even more difficult to force action by leaders.
Legislators represent the perceived desires of their constituents and the interest groups who support, or oppose them, with time and money, followed, far behind by the good of the nation. I don’t see a cure for it, and, especially since the background check defeat, have little or no hope for improvement.
In his book, “The Price of Politics” Bob Woodward points out the inability of Obama to lead from the very beginning of his term as president. I would say it is a result of his lack of experience in congress. People have best described him as a manager.
It really does feel as if the situation has changed to the point where congressional leaders are more or less powerless to lead in the ways others have in the past. So it is hard for me to hold them to those standards.
Sure, I suppose an argument could be made that true leaders, visionaries, would adapt to the current situation and find a way through… but is it also not possible that we’ve arrived at a situation where there is no way through?
It is game theory on some level. Given the rules of our political system, played out over enough time, I’m starting to believe that this stalemate was the inevitable end game. If so, then no amount of leadership or playing the system will solve the problem… the system is simply in a state that can not be “worked” – in that case, changing the rules that encourage obstruction as a tactic may be our only solution.
“She strikes me as someone that is terribly nervous when she is speaking publicly despite the fact she has been in the spotlight forever. But it appears not to have hurt her rise to power.’
I’ve thought the same thing, and of most other Senate leaders too. Boehner cries at the drop of a hat, McConnell is an extremely awkward person… None of them, including Reid, strike me as very impressive when I see them or listen to them speak.
In terms of rising to power in the Senate, it would seem that the skill sets required to do that are less about presentation or appealing to the public… and more about being able to work the back rooms, craft deals, build alliances, and appeal to your fellow senators.
Dave, I think you are confusing the House with the Senate (although McConnel is a Senator). But what you say probably holds true for all of Congress.
You are right none of them are great orators that is for sure. When you get the president off script he doesn’t seem to perform very well (he is an outstanding speaker on script). He seems to be getting better off the cuff. He is still pretty young by political standards.
Yeah, I was typing too fast and improperly substituting senate for congress.
But the path to leadership in both houses is the same.
It is not how you present yourself to the general public that matters, because the public does not promote congressional leaders. Congress itself does.
So the people who acquire those leadership positions are not necessarily people who impress or appeal to us, they are people who appeal to their fellow members of congress.
Part of the problem is that it is not clear what the agenda is for this administration. The election was supposedly about the economy yet all we are talking about is gun control and now immigration reform? We have a government that acts like the stock-market when they get a bogus tweet. They react to the news rather than having a concise plan. Getting things done (even when things are less dysfunctional) takes lots of work and lots of time. Sucking up to the other side etc. None of that is happening so nothing is being achieved. The job for the opposing party is relatively an easy one. The GOP is being quite effective in their opposition. 2014 is not far off, it will be interesting to see what happens. If what I have been hearing from the democrats and the WH is true it should be a simple victory for them in the midterm elections. Some of the health care reform act should be getting into full swing so all of us can expect a big drop in our health care costs as well as a big improvement in the services we will be receiving so that will help them even more!
This morning Ari Shapiro made an excellent point of leadership regarding responding to terrorism this morning. He said this first:
“When an underwear bomber tried to bring down an airplane on Christmas Day 2009, the White House was basically silent for two days. Finally, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano made this tone-deaf comment on CNN, while Obama kept vacationing in Hawaii: “The system worked. Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action.””
What happened in Libya was very poorly handled and Susan Rice was thrown under the bus.
Then Ari says this:
“he made a statement a few hours after bombs went off at the Boston Marathon last week.
“We will find out who did this,” he said. “We’ll find out why they did this. Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups will feel the full weight of justice.””
Sometimes you learn on the fly.
Where is Tip O’Neill when we need him? Where is Bob Dole?
It used to be that you could just start a war and then everyone would fall in line. It might still work on plenty of people but it isn’t something Democrats can get away with because they would lose most of their own party.
“It used to be that you could just start a war and then everyone would fall in line.” It is true. To be successful you need good propaganda, you need to demonize the enemy etc. We do the opposite these days. Or enemies know what works and with enough time they will probably be victorious.
Paul- Before you can start all that demonizing business, you need to identify enemy.
Other than Al Qaeda, I am trying to think of one nation or entity that considered itself a true “enemy” of the US,( that is desiring to attack and defeat us militarily), at least since the Korean War . Certainly not the Cold War Soviets, who were more afraid of us than we of them. N. Vietnam & Iraq we attacked first (the latter perhaps with justification…. the first time).
Just what enemies (other than Al Qaeda, which, IMHO, has been reasonably well-demonized) did you have in mind?
The cold war Soviets realistically felt they could win a nuclear exchange with the US and discussed the possibility of doing that. Given their little regard for human life either of their own people or of course of others, certainly they were a true and existential threat to the existence of not only the US but civilization itself. All of our other enemies and challenges we have faced pale in comparison to the cold war period and danger inherent within that period.
The Islamic terrorist threat is real but it is not a true national security concern, it is a safety concern. Let’s say that North Korea and Pakistan both allow their nuclear weapons to go to Islamic terrorist groups. This would be very bad for the world and the US, however they still are no where near being in a position to realistically use those weapons on a large scale against the US, not even close.
Iran is a country that is led by relatively evil people, who talk about Jews as worthy of extermination in the same way as their predecessors the Nazi’s spoke of Jews and their extermination. They are a regional threat.
The fact is we have a lot of enemies in the world. Part of it is a reaction to our empire and part of it is simply reflexive. We pulled out of Iraq for example and will soon pull out of Afghanistan, yet we will still be hated by certain groups simply because of who we are, unrelated to our actions as a country.
newt, none. Like I said if you can’t do it you probably can’t win.
The question of whether or not radical Islamic terrorists view us as an enemy because we are occupying their territory will soon be answered. If that is the case the threat should go away in the next few years.