Current Events > Good article about how Democrats are bad at 'deep' politics re: Pelosi

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/house-dominated-nancy-pelosi-hurts-young-democrats/575737/

That's not the term they use but the GOP has been many times better at building a bench of candidates and legislators for my entire life and this is one of the reasons why. Basically the decrepit septugenarians running the party are completely unwilling to let anyone else have any meaningful power in the caucus.

One of the great ironies of the 2018 midterm elections is that the Democratic Partys emergent starsRepresentatives Kyrsten Sinema and Beto ORourkelikely would have remained nameless had they tabled their Senate bids in favor of another term in the House.

This isnt only because Senate candidates can attract a brighter spotlight than they would as one of hundreds in the lower chamber. Its because the House Democratic caucus is increasingly viewed as an unfriendly environment for rising talent. Against a nearly two-decade-old leadership structure and term-limitless committee assignments, more and more members have begun to eye the Senate or state office as the antidote to their long-shot prospects of scaling ranks in the House.

...

The notion that theres no one more experienced than Nancy Pelosi is a self-fulfilling prophecy because you cant have experience if you cant gain experience, one senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity for fear of backlash, told me. Our best members will keep leaving when they continue to see theres no movement at the top.

...

In other words, Democrats believe their caucus has no shortage of talent. At the same time, however, up-and-comers like Bustos and Jeffries are battling, put simply, for some of the least influential positions in the House. Pelosis critics believe thats by design. If youre a new member, those positions can seem like an exciting prospect, but you quickly realize what their limitations are and how hard it is to rise up from them, the senior Democratic aide said. So you find yourself in these made-up positions that dont pass the smell test as real leadership opportunities, and then you wake up one day and youre Joe Crowley, sitting in the caucus-chair position for so long and then realizing its too late.
...

Equally frustrating for the Democrats I spoke to is that this is not at all the case for House Republicans. Unlike Democrats, for example, Republicans term-limit their committee chairmen, making it possible for young and talented members to take over powerful committees early in their tenure. As Murphy, the former representative, pointed out, Paul Ryan is a good case study in the benefits of this policy: Ryan was only 41 when he took over the Budget Committee, a position that allowed him to build a national profile and attract attention from party leaders. Less than five years later, he gaveled in as speaker of the House.

The Republican rules when it comes to term limits for chairmen is just how we view leadership, National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Spokesman Matt Gorman told me. It encourages younger members to step up so we dont see the stagnation weve seen on the other side.

Theres also broader institutional support for young members. Like Ryan, 53-year-old House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthylikely to be the GOPs minority leader in the new termwas identified early on by the NRCC as a potential leader. ThenMajority Leader John Boehner appointed him as a freshman in 2006 to the powerful Steering Committee; two years later, he was named chief deputy minority whip.

Put another way, the likely leaders of the GOP in the 116th CongressMcCarthy and the likely minority whip, Steve Scalisewere freshmen when Pelosi was previously speaker.


This is very on brand for both parties
---

To me this is interesting and speaks to the problems we talk about the parties having. The GOP represents a much more narrow section of civil society than Democrats do, but the actual processes they use to move the levers of power are much more open and designed on coalitions. For example, the Freedom Caucus would never have this much clout in the Democratic party.

You can construe that as a good thing, if you think radicalism is bad, but it also creates the situation where the the Democratic party is basically a giant empty suit. You have to listen to your caucus and the people they represent even if they are stupid and crazy. BTW as you can see, you can be stupid and crazy and get a lot of shit done.

idk I just find it very interesting
---