To try and flesh out some of why I have been saying what I have been saying about Congressional leadership, here are a series of questions to ask when trying to evaluate the quality of such leaders.
Majority or minority?
Congressional leaders in the majority have a lot more power, and therefore look far more effective, than leaders of minority parties. Majority parties can pass legislation and can control what is scheduled for a vote, and what never sees the light of day. Votes are the fuel that powers Congress. If you don’t have votes, you are weak. Period.
House or the Senate?
The minority in the House has practically no power. This is why, for those of us old enough to remember, the Republicans were so frustrated from 1954 to 1994, because they never controlled the House at all during that period. The House majority controls what bills are voted on and which aren’t. There is some nuance beyond that, but it does really boil down to control of the legislative calendar (i.e., what bills make it to the floor for a vote, and those that do not).
I think some people have a conception of the House that any member can get an idea on the floor for debate, and maybe convince enough colleagues to go along. That’s not how it works.
It should be stressed that individual Senators have a lot of personal prerogatives, like being able to put holds on various actions in the Chamber, that members of the House don’t have.
Blocking or Making Policy?
I think it is important, in conjunction with the previous two questions, to ask if the goal is to engage in a negative (to block something) or to engage in positive policymaking.
Blocking is largely impossible for the minority in the House.
Blocking in the Senate occurs via the filibuster, or in a few other procedural ways that do not exist in the House.
The minority can almost never engage in positive policymaking. I only say “almost” because there are likely some highly unlikely, fanciful scenarios one might conjure, but they are tantamount to winning football games via a combo of successful Hail Marys, onside kicks, and a series of last-ditch hook-and-latteral plays–I mean, yes, possible in theory, but not especially likely, to put it mildly.
Now or then?
It is important to understand that the US party system went through a substantial re-sorting, as noted in the previous point, in the mid-1990s. It has deepened partisan polarization and has made bipartisan cooperation less likely.
Partisan polarization has been a significant influence on the Senate. For evidence, go look at Senate confirmation votes for SCOTUS nominees or cabinet members. Not that long ago, those were almost always super-majority, bipartisan votes. Increasingly, however, they have become starkly partisan.
In terms of leadership pre-1994, I would again note the dominance of the Democratic Party, especially in the House. Note the seat margins in the 60s, 70s, and 80s as listed here. In the 102nd Congress (1991-1993), on the very cusp of the Republican takeover after the 1994 elections, the Democrats had a 100-seat margin over the Republicans. One. Hundred. Seats.
As I noted in some comments in one of yesterday’s posts, the last Senate that LBJ led (the 86th), his party had 65 seats.
Other factors in a “now v. then” frame include factors like the whole “government shutdown” issue started in the Carter administration, and the filibuster has evolved considerably over time, to include changes to the cloture rule, but more importantly, the evolution of the procedural filibuster that we have seen really affects the workings of the Senate over recent decades.
As a general rule, I think we have to see the 1930s (New Deal Era)-Mid-1990s as a distinct era of the US party system, with the 21st Century being its own distinct era. Comparisons of leadership have to take this into account.
Hall of Famer or journeyman?
If your go-to comparison is LBJ or Nancy Pelosi, that is unfair, as that is like saying, “Why can’t my journeyman QB play like a Hall of Famer?”
It struck me after the interchange yesterday, but the fact that when we need to conjure an impressive Seante Leader, we go to LBJ is incredibly telling. LBJ was the Senate Majority Leader roughly 70 years ago. The fact that no one else leaps to mind as an example should tell you that there haven’t been a lot of stellar Senate Majority Leaders.
Side note: the famous series of photos (and they are amazing!) of Johnson deploying “The Treatment” was when he was President. And I would hasten to add that, for all of Johnson’s leadership skills, it needs to be remembered that he was a one-term president (he famously chose not to seek re-election).
How emotionally vested am I?
I think we all have to stop and ask ourselves, How much am I allowing emotional investment to cloud my assessments?
If you have ever watched a football game (or any sporting contest) wherein you have no real rooting interest, but the people you are watching with do, it is easy to see how much emotion goes into assessing players, coaches, and especially officiating.
