Who's Really Leading the Democratic Rebellion Against Pelosi?
Truthdig
Wall Street is doing everything in its power to prevent Rep. Nancy Pelosi,
D-Calif., from becoming the next speaker of the House. (Gage Skidmore /
Flickr)
It's impossible to understand the Democratic rebellion against Nancy Pelosi
without understanding the way power works in the House of Representatives.
To understand the self-serving men behind this rebellion, heed the words of
the late screenwriter William Goldman: Follow the money.
There is discontent with Pelosi's ideology on the left, and that's
understandable. But ideology is not driving this campaign, and this is no
populist rebellion. In fact, its leaders have no discernible ideology at
all.
That's how corporate money rolls in the Democratic Party. It lays low, hides
its true colors, and pretends it only wants to "get things done."
The anti-Pelosi insurgency is not a movement. It's a cabal, orchestrated by
the appropriately hashtagged #FiveWhiteGuys, a group of self-self-interested
players with big money behind them. These white males resemble nothing so
much as the next-generation terminator played by Robert Patrick in
"Terminator 2: Judgment Day." They're cunning, aggressive, shape-shifting,
and so reflective that anyone who looks at them sees only a distorted image
of themselves.
If you're looking to change politics, they don't reflect you.
Rebel Without a Cause
This ersatz rebellion's most visible leader is Massachusetts Rep. Seth
Moulton, a custom-crafted biography in a suit who appears to hold no core
beliefs. That's undoubtedly a plus for the political operatives who
recruited and promoted him. An early profile has Moulton variously calling
himself "a progressive Democrat," a "pragmatic Democrat," and a "frustrated
Democrat"-and that was just during his first primary.
Moulton was reportedly recruited to run for Congress by "New Politics," a
group that seeks to elect both Democratic and Republican veterans. It
describes itself as "bipartisan," a word will come up again in the story of
the anti-Pelosi rebellion. New Politics' other success story is Republican
Rep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, who notably blamed Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton, rather than the ill-advised Iraq war, for the rise of ISIS.
Moulton, who reportedly backed that tragic misadventure, enjoyed the early
support of two generals who helped lead it, David Petraeus and Stanley
McChrystal. (Unfortunately, both are now disgraced: McChrystal for
disrespecting the civilian chain of command, and Petraeus for revealing
secrets to an extramarital lover as he cheated on his wife, a crime that
would have likely led to criminal indictment for a less well-connected
official.)
As the Washington Post reports, Moulton "has aligned with Republicans on
some policy bills, ranging from a ban on the gun accessories used in last
year's mass shooting in Las Vegas to a recent legislation allowing veterans
to use medical marijuana."
Moulton had praise for Pelosi when he was asked about her last year, saying
she had achieved an "awful lot." He told Politico's Michael Kruse that he
thought much of the Republican criticism of her was "unfair," but added,
"the reality is that we're losing."
Well, Pelosi's winning now. What's his rationale for opposing Pelosi today?
"If that many seats change hands," Moulton said after the election, "that's
just all the more reason the American people are calling out for change."
Heads, he wins. Tails, Pelosi loses.
The FIRE Brigade
Moulton's given to making hazy statements like: "Congress needs a new
leader. Period."
The only concrete thing about him appears to be the money he's raised for
like-minded candidates. "Thanks to a network of donors rooted in the
financial centers of Boston and New York," reports the Post, "Moulton's
Serve America PAC and related political committees raised a combined $8
million for the election cycle."
Moulton has been well-rewarded for his ideological plasticity. During his
short political career, Moulton has received a total of $1,723,870 from the
investor class that comprises the so-called "FIRE" sector-financial,
insurance, and real estate. He has also received more than $160,000 from
Pharma. (These figures come from Open Secrets.)
Moulton isn't the only member of the five-man anti-Pelosi band, of course.
The rhythm section is composed of Colorado's Ed Perlmutter, Oregon's Kurt
Schrader, and Bill Foster of Illinois. The three men have received
$4,082,803, $987,050, and $2,747,969 respectively from the FIRE sector. Rep.
Tim Ryan of Ohio, who mounted a longshot challenge to Pelosi in 2016, is the
band's other leader-the Keith Richards, if you will, to Moulton's would-be
Jagger.
Ryan isn't running this time around. Instead, Ryan recently insisted that
there are "plenty of really competent females that we can replace her with."
For sheer tone-deafness in gender relations, that phrase belongs with Mitt
Romney's 2012 comment about the "binders full of women" he hoped to appoint
as president. It may be worse, in fact, since it suggests females can't be
assumed to be competent. The remark will have an added sting for Democratic
women who remember Ryan's past positions on reproductive rights.
Why does Ryan say Pelosi has to go? "We need a brand change," Ryan told
Rolling Stone. For content-free criticism, that's about as empty-and as
cringeworthy-as it gets.
No Labels, No Point
The rhetorical style of these Democratic "rebels"-vague on the issues, big
on cliches and platitudes, the rhetorical equivalent of cotton candy-comes
with a pedigree. It is the hallmark of "centrism," the billionaire-funded
political faction that serves its financial backers by selling themselves as
"non-ideological," "technocratic" architects of "bipartisan" consensus who
can "break the gridlock" and "solve problems."
For this crowd, "solving problems" always winds up meaning the same thing:
cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and an unwarranted obsession with the
federal deficit that always-just accidentally, mind you!-winds up helping
corporations and the billionaire class.
The "centrist" political style claims to be "above parties and
partisanship"-which, in the end, is another way of saying it's free of any
principles except the interests of its paymasters. It often comes in the
guise of patriotism, as when Seth Moulton says he places "country over
party"-a comment that, implicitly, is a deep insult to those who believe one
party's proposals would serve the country better than the other's.
The anti-Pelosi campaign is being supported by one of the mainstays of the
corporate centrist world-the cynical political ploy known as "No Labels,"
which I wrote about in 2012, and its creation, the "Problem Solvers Caucus."
If you called "No Labels" a guaranteed-employment plan for Republican and
Democratic political hacks, you would not be wrong.
Besides, the Problem Solvers Caucus-which, predictably, promised to "break
the gridlock" and get things done-hasn't solved any problems. Given their
agenda, that's a good thing-but it's hardly a mandate to lead.
It's Not About the Speakership-It's About Blocking Progressive Change
The No Labels crowd is throwing its public influence (negligible) and its
ability to muster campaign cash (considerable) behind the anti-Pelosi effort
for a reason: they see this as an opportunity to weaken the Democrats'
newfound power in the House. That's especially urgent for the big-money
crowd at a time when nearly half of successful new candidates ran on
Medicare for All and more than 100 House Democrats have joined the Expand
Social Security Caucus.
The "centrist" campaign may help explain why Pelosi plans to impose a new
rule making it harder to raise middle-class taxes. This rule would make it
harder to achieve either Medicare for All or expanded Social Security, even
though any new taxes would leave the working class much better off
financially than it is today.
Rep. Tom Reed, a Republican member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, has
already indicated he could back Pelosi if more such changes were put in
place. The caucus' additional proposed changes, roughly outlined here, would
effectively give Republicans veto power over progressive legislation.
It is noteworthy that there was no serious attempt to implement these rules
when Republicans ran the House.
Even more than the speakership, this procedural power grab motivates the
anti-Pelosi crowd and its backers. They might even withdraw their opposition
to her if they could seize this power for themselves and their "centrist"
allies in both parties.
No wonder these "rebels" are vague about their goals. Given the massive
support for Medicare for All (more than 70 percent of the public, 85 percent
of Democrats) and expanding Social Security, they know their agenda is
extremely unpopular. If they truly believed in "country over party," they
would support programs that most of the country wants and needs.
How Power Works
Here's how power really works in the House of Representatives. The Speaker
holds enormous power, but only serves at the pleasure of her caucus. The
representatives in that caucus are not her employees; they are her
constituents. Anyone who wants to become Speaker has to win their support.
One very effective way to do that is by raising money, as Pelosi has
prodigiously done. Another is by managing the House, and the caucus,
effectively enough to rack up a list of accomplishments that will help those
representatives win reelection.
Here's something else worth knowing about Democratic power in the House: Its
party organizations are still deeply hierarchical, and are built on deeply
embedded relationships. If the Moulton/Ryan gang succeeds in unseating
Pelosi, the speakership will not go to someone the left supports. Sure, it
would be great to see Barbara Lee become Speaker, but that simply isn't
going to happen. Besides, she's not even running. (Lee is running for the
House's number five position.)
The Five Guys (not to be confused with the burger chain of the same name)
and their backers are almost certainly looking for one of two outcomes:
either Pelosi accedes to their demands, which will paralyze the Democratic
agenda, or Pelosi is replaced with someone who will. But if Pelosi goes
down, that replacement will probably not be Rep. Marcia Fudge, despite her
public expressions of interest (as of this writing) and Moulton's professed
support for her.
The Five Guys may block Pelosi, but they will not choose her successor.
Instead, in the chaos that would follow a Pelosi defeat, the speakership
will probably go to the second-highest member of the Democratic hierarchy:
Steny Hoyer.
End Game
The left is distressed with Pelosi, and that's understandable. Pelosi's
commitment to "pay as you go" funding is a political and procedural mistake
of the first order. The new tax rule is, as MoveOn.org and others have said,
"a staggeringly bad idea"-although that may have been forced on her by the
Five Guys crowd. (Progressives should note, however, that this rule could be
waived at any time to pass progressive programs.)
A Hoyer speakership would be a catastrophe for the left, for reasons
Politico's Bill Scher lays out here. Hoyer represents the worst of the
corporate-backed, "centrist," economically neoliberal party elite. His
faction's disastrous policies and muddled messaging led it into the
political wilderness. With this election, the party has only begun to make
up some of the ground lost under its rule.
Progressives should mobilize to defeat Hoyer and replace him, preferably
someone who can serve as an heir apparent. And if the left wants a more
progressive House Speaker, it needs to run candidates in more primaries.
When House Democrats are more progressive, Pelosi or her successor will
either change accordingly or be replaced.
Yes, Pelosi's a big fundraiser. She reportedly raised $135.6 million for
this election cycle. A cynic might say that this figure, when compared to
Moulton's $8 million, makes her about 17 times more likely to win this
speakership fight.
Pelosi raises that money, from a variety of sources, because she plays to
win in the current system. Nancy Pelosi can't, and won't, lead the fight to
get money out of politics. But then, the Democratic left needs to stop
waiting for politicians to fight their battles. That's what movements are
for.
This country needs a mass movement that will demand fundamental political
change. But nobody needs the Five Guys' corporate-backed chaos, or the
reactionary regime it seeks to impose on the House of Representatives.
If some leftists don't want Pelosi to win, that's understandable. But they
should hope with all their hearts that her opponents lose.
This article was produced by the Independent Media Institute.
Richard J. Eskow / Independent Media Institute
