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.
