Musings on Congressional Leadership
In several threads over the last couple of days, the question of the quality of congressional leadership has emerged. I will say up top that I have not been especially impressed with either Hakeem Jeffries or Chuck Schumer. I would definitely like better leaders–of course, the devil is in the details, because like conversations that have emerged on this site, it would be nice to have better candidates for public office. Better is definitely always, well, better.
The devil is exceedingly in the details. What does better leadership look like? And, more importantly, where does it come from?
I think it also should be noted that we all tend to conflate “good leadership” with “getting the outcome I like” in a way that often confuses causality. We do the same thing with candidates. If our candidates win, it proves they were a good candidate, and if our candidate loses, it proves they were a bad candidate in much the same way that if our football team runs a play that doesn’t work, it was obviously bad play-calling, but if the play works, the coach is a genius!*
Outcomes are always more than just the Decisive Actions of a Great Person who makes the Best Decisions. What other people outside the scope of whom the leader can influence, as well as the general conditions and context of a given scenario, matter. Some scenarios have a higher chance of success than do others. And some are no-win.
Maybe the worst part of Schumer’s leadership on the shutdown, which I think is key to all of this, is that he had to know that the odds of success (if defined as restoration, even for a year, of the ACA subsidies) were practically zero. As such, maybe he should never have led the party down this road (although that would have gotten a lot of heat as well).
Alternatively, a different goal perhaps should have been sought. As I have noted, I would have preferred a focus on Trump’s authoritarian behavior and a stance by Democrats that they would not vote for a CR they did not believe that Trump would honor (since he had already been ignoring congressional appropriations), and that the GOP would have to break the filibuster to otherwise open the government.
I am, however, certain, that there is no way that there were the votes for that pathway in the Democratic caucus.
So we got what we got.
So, again, Jeffries and Schumer continue to strike me as not up to the moment, but I think at least in part it is because what the Democrats need right now are leaders who are good at public relations more than legislative procedure at the moment, because neither leader has the votes in either chamber to do much.
I will, however, add that I think in the Senate’s case, Schumer could be doing more to use legislative tools to block administration appointments to create more attention (like Tuberville did with military promotions in the last Congress). I would say that he should be blocking more legislation, but there really hasn’t been much of a legislative agenda to block, save the BBB, which was passed with reconciliation, and therefore bypasses the filibuster.
But I think that I cannot stress enough how being in the minority in either chamber means very limited power. In the House, it means pretty much having no power and having to just sit there and wait for the next election, save in very specific moments in time.
In the Senate, there are some powers available to the minority, but they are all blocking powers. There is little that the minority can do to positively forward a legislative goal.
I think it is especially important to note that the idea that a united minority could rise up and peel away enough of the majority party to do something positive is largely a fantasy. It is especially a fantasy in our polarized times.
A rare example of possible minority-driven action would be the discharge petition bubbling in the House over the Epstein files. But, I would note, that isn’t legislation. It costs no money and changes no policy. And even if the signatures are acquired, as CNN notes, it isn’t like it will automatically result in the release of the files.
At any rate, and without suggesting that I am defending either Democratic Leader, I just think it is important to understand that leadership skill can only get you so far in the minority in Congress and that even if the Democrats had the best leaders of all time, the shutdown was still almost certainly going to end just as it did. Wanting it to be different does not change the basics of the situation.
(Next up: a more generic post about Congressional leadership. Fun, right?)
*As family and friends can attest, I have been known, in the midst of a play, to shout: “That’s a bad call!” in the middle of a play to change, to “That’s a great call!” when the play produces the needed first down.
You could be a great leader and have to report to Trump. Then as a great leader you could take a stand and resign, or as a great leader you could take a stand and fight and support your agency. Either way, you’re ****ed. Same with the Dems. With no power you cannot do anything other than message, which they have not done very well. And you know after the BBB the GOP has nothing. What legislation is on the agenda? Healthcare? Nope. Immigration reform? Nope, have gestapo for that. Big Biz regulation? Nah, they can do what they want. Ensure all Americans are treated equally? Huh? F That. Hail leader! When is our next recess/vacation?
You’re right of course, Dr. Taylor. But you are preaching maturity, humility (about the limits of one’s expertise), and perspective in an Age of Rage.
I’ll reject the lazy groupthink and defend them, based on the same logic. A different leader wouldn’t have changed the outcome. Shutdowns never work to force the majority party to bend to the minority party’s will, because in our system the president has several degrees more power and authority than the minority party in Congress. Exponentially so when his own party controls congress.
Currently, Democrats cannot “win” a shutdown because Dems run for office to help Americans, and the longer a shutdown drags on the more Americans suffer. Most people who can win a Dem primary will only tolerate this for so long. Democrats are morally opposed to shutdowns.
Republicans cannot “win” a shutdown rn because they branded themselves antigovernment sociopaths, so they take more blame and a bigger political hit.
Different leaders could not squeeze any more out of this lose-lose proposition. Dems won the political and economic argument. That’s their best case scenario, actually. The idea prolonging the shutdown would’ve forced a party willing to go court to starve Americans to relent on Obamacare subsidies or anything else substantial is magical thinking.
A normal response to all this for a (real) liberal might be ambivalence: “I wouldn’t have voted to end it yet, but I can understand why Democrats could not tolerate images of kids standing in food lines last week.” Normal.
But a supposed liberal or progressive being in a white-hot incandescent rage because a shutdown ended is weird. When people talk about TDS (Trump Derangement or Trump Dickriding) that’s what they mean. When opposition or support for Trump drives one to be ethically unglued.
These temporary left-wing lunacies (that will be forgotten by Christmas) are still not as importantly disturbing as conservatives electing an Epstein-bestie pedo who incited the Jan 6 terror attack, has masked ICE goons tear gas children, illegally increased regressive taxes via tariffs etc.
But, yes, some of our brothers and sisters across the ideological spectrum are increasingly unmoored. USA may be cooked.
Yes, yes and YES! The messenger can be as important as the message, and Schumer is brutal and Jeffries comes across as Obama Lite…same halting style when he is off the teleprompter. He compounds that with a distracting (and annoying to me) hand waving/pointing tic that he seems to have picked up from Bernie Sanders. Is this petty? Perhaps, but the message from Dems is crucial, and therefore so is the messenger. Newsom, Shapiro and Beshear are all much more skilled than Chuck and Hakeem, and so is AOC, and a rising star is Joe Neguse (D-Colorado) who, when asked about the shutdown a week or so ago, prefaced his response with a laundry list of Trump’s corrupt actions. It was pitch perfect…something all the Congressional Dems should be doing.
I just typed a whole bunch of stuff out and deleted it because it was meandering and pointless*.
I spent a lot of time yesterday chewing over this and am still unsettled with this. I get that Schumer and Jeffries have very little formal power. Yet, they are still Minority Leaders, they are still Party Leaders**. They might not call the tune, but they can certainly tell their people when to dance and tell the gallery (Dem base and Outsiders) when to cheer and when to make fart noises. It’s not much, but it’s honest work. It’s important work.
Now, while I very much think that the shutdown should have continued, I can accept that success was nil AND the harm to regular people would get to a point that made Dems just as morally culpable for the suffering. Here’s the thing, a decent leader should be able to count the votes of his people and know pretty close to exactly when the failure point would be (procedural power) and be able to effectively communicate that to the base.
By caving when he did, after a very successful election day, when Trump is going out of his way to own the destruction, letting the shit hit the fan on a Sunday afternoon AND failing to give the base and other leaders a heads up that they were going to end it and failing to manage the fallout from that (PR power); all Schumer managed to do is piss off his base and look like a cowardly idiot that got played by a cruel dementia patient.
A better leader would have, on Sunday, gone to his caucus and said, “ok, the psychos are enjoying this too much, we need to end it. Who besides me is going to be the sacrifice?” Then gone out on Monday morning and explained to everyone what he was doing and why. Same exact outcome, still gotta manage a pissed off base, but you come across looking like a weak idiot. Have an answer for when people say, “What are you going to do if Trump (/Johnson/Thune) renege on the deal?” The easy answer is “Trump IS going to do this again, and we’re going to fight him again with whatever megar tools we have available. This is too important, we are all going to have to sacrifice.”
Maybe it’s bullshit wish-casting on my part. But as a life-long Dem, I’ve seen this show over and over and over again. I want them to try and live up to my family’s motto*** “NO, FUCK YOU!”.
So, all of that. Also, how Jeffries and Schumer handled Mandami. That is incredibly offensive and a wild abdication of leadership. And look, that’s an area of leadership where it’s completly moral. “No, Andrew Cuomo is a sex pest and he did not get the nomination. I endorse Mandami, because I’m a Dem and he’s a Dem. End of story.”
*The text itself, not the argument. Sometimes bad writing just makes arguments worse and longer.
**Yes, without a co-sectarian being President, they are at a disadvantage, but still.
*** I come from an intensely dysfunctional family. My partner and I jokingly came up with that as the family motto and then it became a battle cry for us.
@Beth:
Those are excellent points.
1) A leader should never ask people to do something he wouldn’t do.
2) Claiming “I couldn’t help it. I can’t control how other Senators vote,” may be true, but it’s lame and not indicative of good leadership.
One time we made a huge error in a proposal and lost it as a result. One of the owners was mad enough to want to fire whoever was responsible. Our boss and department head told him “I’m responsible for my department.” He has lots of faults and does many annoying things, but he does have our backs.
@Beth:
Mamdani declined to publicly endorse Joe Biden and then Kamala Harris last year. I’m mystified as to why the Uncommitted crowd thinks they deserve more support from Democrats than they are willing to give to Democrats. Last year, Mamdani should’ve said, “Donald Trump is a fascist, white supremacist pedophile. So I endorse Harris, the Democrat because I’m a Democrat. End of story.”
But he declined to do so. Now it’s a scandal when he gets back the tepid reluctance he himself put out? Are New Yorkers more special or something?
You already know I disagree with you on this point. A united caucus with strong leadership would have produced a different outcome. That said, Schumer should know the Senate well enough to anticipate how committed members are to taking a stand. To earn that kind of support, leaders need respect from their team and must make clear the consequences of their actions.
Let’s be honest—being chosen as a leader in either party often depends heavily on fundraising ability. How much money your network can channel to the DNC, DCCC, NRCC, RNC, and similar organizations plays a major role. This was the primary reason Pelosi secured her position in the early 2000s.
On the House side, Republicans have maintained this dynamic since Newt Gingrich, influencing nearly every major issue, regardless of what the majority is. It even affects how offices operate. For example, Republican House members were required—at least through Paul Ryan’s tenure—to provide personalized responses to every constituent letter. These responses were tracked and reported to the RNC, contributing to a scorecard that influenced future contributions to campaigns. By contrast, my Democratic senators and House member often say, “There’s no way to respond to every letter.”
In short, I think Gavin Newsom has it right: Democrats are acting as if these are normal times. They need to take stronger, more decisive stands if they expect to
overcomeINFLUENCE the challenges we face.Schumer’s leadership should be analyzed by first considering his goals – and by that I mean his donors’ goals. He’s a member of the [Pelosi] Generation Gerontocracy and therefore cannot / will not conclude Republicans could possibly be acting in bad faith.
His actions precisely achieved the donor goals of keeping genuinely progressive legislation impossible to pass because Republicans will be able to filibuster it. So Chuck has a ready-made excuse for not trying!
@DK:
So, just to be clear, I don’t know if you are saying that I’m part of this “Uncommitted crowd” or not, but just to avoid confusion, I’m not. Again, life-long Dem.
Regarding Mamdani not endorsing Biden or Harris, hindsight being what it is, I’m gonna say he was right to decline. My reason for this is my personal experience of actively going out into my communities and pushing various “vote blue no matter who” arguments only for the Biden and Harris campaigns going out and doing shit that made it all but impossible for me to do so without looking like a complete asshole. I can’t begin to describe how demoralizing it was to watch the slow moving wreck of Biden and watch Harris waffle (cowardly) on trans issue, muzzle Walz, refuse to address Israel’s fuckery, and her open embrace of FUCKING LIZ CHENEY.
In all honesty, I had no idea who Mamdani was until early this year and only because I have a close friend in NYC. So, he was a basically irrelevant backbencher rabble-rabble rouser. Because of your comment I went to see what he was doing in 2024 and couldn’t find anything, but I did find this article which really sealed it for me.
I’ve dutifully voted blue no matter who for years only to have conservative and centrist Dems 1. fail to return the favor at any point, and 2. constantly shit on communities and causes important to me. This is a two way street and Harris/Schumer/Jeffries side set it on fire first.
I also think this exposes a broader failure of leadership in US and UK politics. If you constantly shit on your base and do nothing but tell them to get in line or else, eventually a significant portion of your base will decide “or else” is the better option. A couple of days ago I asked JohnSF what he thought about Zack Polanski, the leader of the Green Party of England and Wales. While I appreciate his thoughts, the one thing that has really stuck with me is his belief* that a whole mess of UK voters will end up tactically voting for Labour in order to Farage out.
As I see it, Keir Starmer is a charisma-less asshole who seems to think making life horrible immigrants, trans people, and anyone left of center is a good thing. Labour also has a remarkable ability to step on every single fucking rake it comes across. What I’m seeing as someone new to this system and eligible to vote is that absolutely no one is excited to vote for labour at all and broadly speaking left is bleeding away to the Greens or just giving up. JohnSF, having experienced this once already, I’m dead certain that a huge chunk of people on the broadly speaking left, will either stay home to punish Labour or vote Green. I’m certainly not going to tell people to vote tactically. That failed in the US in 2024 and will fail in the UK in 2029 (or more likely May 2026). The tactical votes were taken in 2020 (US) and 2024 (UK) and it appears in both instances, the Centrist/Right-wing leaders that came to power didn’t understand what they jobs were and failed.
If your leaders suck and stand for nothing, you get Nazis.
*please correct me if I’m mis-phrasing this.
@Beth:
Excuses, excuses. The reason we got Nazis in America is because unfortunately, races other than black folk get to vote. The fact that wypipo are still bashing Biden, Harris, or Democrats and spreading false propaganda like “Democrats stand for nothing” is the problem. Most of Amerikkka’s white electorate is just politically psychotic — incapable of admitting when they are wrong (and they are wrong about Biden, Harris, and Democrats). That’s why we get Nazis. Because white Americans are just not as politically intelligent as the 85-90% of black voters who — with access to the same choices, info and options — vote strategically for the flawed human beings we have, not the saints we desire, to advance progress.
Black folk don’t have enough privilege to sit around in an election year being “demoralized” or hemming and hawing about whether to tell folks to Vote Blue –because we disagree with Biden/Harris here and there on important things, and have routinely been failed by the system — when the only other option is fascist white supremacy. That’s the difference between us and y’all. We do what cold pragmatism demands, while our “allies” (lol) are still out here attacking Biden and Harris. Crazy. But after 400+ years of it, we’re very much used to it.
Some of the insane Democrat Derangement Syndrome commentary here is just another example of what a lost cause much of white Amerikkka increasingly is — apologies to exceptions like Dr. Taylor.
But at any rate, that sword cuts both ways. Mamdani and his supporters are not the only ones whose opinions matter. He and his people have reasons to not endorse or support Democrats they have misgivings about — Mandani is subject to the same standard. He’s no more or less entitled to endorsements than anyone else.
First, I have personally experienced Federal shutdowns or reduction in force three times to the best of my recollection, so I understand the pain the Joyner family and other Federal employees have endured.
Second, Dr Joyner’s and Dr. Taylor’s posts over the last three days have focused solely on the wielding of congressional power, albeit influenced by Trump’s cruel, destructive bent.
I view the shutdown more through an historical lens. The senators voted to end the shut-down, in my view, appeased Trump, much as Chamberlain did prior to WW II.
The debate right about the value of the shut-down is, I believe, really a debate about a perceived and significant paradigm shift in the preservation of democracy in the United States.
The posts by Dr. Joyner and Dr. Taylor are about the futility of the minority trying to influence the power of the majority in Congress.
Others, myself included, believe that ethical leadership by the Republican Party is a lost cause and Democrats must fight a war of ideas.
The Republicans are acquiring power by whatever means to ensure that the rich get richer. Their use of propaganda (bald-faced lies) is masterful and was the key to the 2024 election outcome. And it it continues. For example, Trump is taking credit for infrastructure improvements funded under the Biden administration.
By capitulating, the Democratic senators thwarted an opportunity for Americans to demand continuance and improvement of government programs vital to their health and economic security. Macroeconomics and monetary theory mitigated the worst outcomes of the 2008 Great Recession (created by the 1%) and the COVID pandemic. Have we forgotten the number families saved from economic catastrophe by risk pools and subsidies created by the Affordable Care Act? Sadly, we learned in 2024 that many Americans have no clue how they are kept from harm by such bold government programs.
I believe the posts of the last three days promote the political strategies and tactics of past decades in the hope, by some miracle, new leadership will produce a different outcome. We must fight the challenge we currently face, and it requires savvy communication with all Americans. Expecting a few crumbs of courage, compassion, and respect from the Republicans and the Supreme Courts to Democratic-supported programs is a waste of time and naive.
There will be pain if Democrats stand up to Trump, but it pales to the pain future generations will pay if we don’t put a spanner in the works of Trump and the Federal Society in every legal and non-violent way we can.
It really feels like some of my fellow travelers are yearning for a more authoritarian Democratic Party. I am not on board with that.
Neither Schumer or Jeffries have their job because they are great in media. Nancy Pelosi was a bit better than they are, but she also was not that great in media. That’s not the job they have.
Meanwhile, we’ve had Bernie and AOC and Elizabeth Warren out there. They are good with media. They can be spokespeople. The are being spokespeople.
@DK:
It is my curse.
@Beth:
Honest to God, they can’t even do that. They can suggest and try to encourage , but they really can’t tell (as in give an order).
@Beth:
I have to admit that I thought the way they dealt with Mamdani was strange and tone deaf to the moment.
@HelloWorld:
You are free to assert that, but it is incumbent upon me to note that there has never been an outcome like you are asserting. Just because something can be imagined does not mean it can happen. And even if it can happen in theory, the probability of success has to be taken into account.
There has never been a shutdown nor similar action that forced the majority to do the minority’s will.
The analogy is not perfect, but you are close to telling an astronomer that the Earth is flat and then saying that it is just a matter of opinion when they tell you that no, it is in fact round.
There is no doubt in my mind that he knew that at some point during the shutdown, at least 7 members would cave.
On that count, you might agree to some degree with this guy:
@Skookum:
The next chance that the American people will get to demand anything will be in November 2026. So the real issue is how all this influences the electoral outcomes.
Anything else is, I would argue, magical thinking.
I am at a loss as to how my posts fit that set of parameters.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Sadly, I agree…because the opportunity (i. e., the shutdown) for the most vulnerable voters to demand continuance of vital government programs was thwarted by the Democrats.
It is cruel to withhold food from hungry people. But if rural areas, for example, had to open their eyes and actually pay attention to the extreme poverty of their communities and provide the food locally rather than rely upon the Federal funding , they might not be so eager to support MAGA politicians who line their pockets with PAC dollars donated by the 1%. Or more importantly, the people who elected them might choose differently next time. In other words, the voters would turn the worm. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Even_a_worm_will_turn)
As I wrote before, I perceive a paradigm shift and that new approaches to fight the Trumpublican propaganda machine are needed. Jamelle Bouie’s article Democrats Sure Taught Trump a Lesson is closer to my perception than the recent writings about the shutdown by you and Dr. Joyner. This doesn’t mean I don’t respect both of you or don’t agree with you at least 90% of the time.
I re-read your post and acknowledge that you wrote that different leadership wouldn’t have made a difference in the balance of power between the majority and minority. So much to read, so little time, and I didn’t read closely enough.