As the effort to vote down Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as speaker gains steam, it’s worth taking a step back to acknowledge one thing: House Democrats would be nuts to oust Pelosi as their leader.
As a conservative, to be sure, I am no fan of Pelosi and am not looking forward to her running the House again. I am also well aware of her unpopularity – earning just a 17 percent approval rating nationally. But the reality is that in 2020, voters won’t be basing their votes on Pelosi, they’ll be basing their votes around the issues that are most important to them, their local candidates, and their feelings about President Trump and whoever is challenging him.
Given that Democrats lack the Senate or White House, the goal of any speaker over the next year will be to remain focused on passing legislation that’s supported by the party’s base, broadly popular, yet blocked by Republicans. That will allow Democrats to run in 2020 on the message: “Elect us and we’ll be able to enact all of these great policies being held up by Republicans.” Any speaker will have to have the ability to maintain party discipline and to avoid indulging the fantasy of impeachment that, as of now, remains overwhelmingly unpopular with voters.
It just so happens there is one Democrat who has demonstrated the skills and experience to do precisely this: Nancy Pelosi.
[Read more: Nancy Pelosi challenges Marcia Fudge to enter speaker race: ‘Come on in. The water’s warm’]
In 2006, much like today, Democrats took over the House in the midterms. Many Republicans were convinced that Democrats would overreach. The theory when that they would be overrun by their recalcitrant and radical anti-war base and endanger their chances in 2008. At the time, this seemed like a real possibility. On the first day of the new Democratic majority, anti-war protesters led by Cindy Sheehan shouted down two incoming House Democratic leaders (Rahm Emanuel and Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md.), forcing them to abandon the microphones at a news conference in the Capitol. The protesters were demanding that Democrats defund the war. Had Democrats gone through with it, it would have allowed Republicans to turn the tables and argue that Democrats were stripping funding from troops in harm’s way.
Under Pelosi, Democrats held their fair share of hearings and did heavy messaging that was critical of former President George W. Bush’s handling of Iraq, but they also passed a lot of legislation. Among others, they passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and an expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program. One was held up by Republicans in the Senate, the other was vetoed by Bush. In 2008, they ran on both issues, and these were in the first batch bills that former President Barack Obama signed into law.
Smart Democrats will want to pursue a similar strategy in the new congressional session, sidestepping confrontations that could backfire and instead passing bills on issues that they can run on in 2020. Those issues include the minimum wage, voting rights, immigration, healthcare, cheaper college, and so on.
I get the temptation for Democrats to want a fresh leader after 12 years of rule by Pelosi. But I’m skeptical of the argument that she’ll be a drag on congressional candidates in 2020. First, I think voters prioritize issues and local candidates over which person is going to lead the chamber. Second, any other Democrat would, after two years, carry the same liability as Pelosi in red states. Do people really think Trump would struggle to turn, say, Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, into a villain among the same voters who currently despise Pelosi?
If there were a compelling alternate choice for Democrats who was willing to challenge Pelosi, had the backing of the caucus, and that would be a clear upgrade, I could see the rationale for making a change. But absent that, it seems to me the time to have made a change would have been after Democrats lost in 2016 – not following an election in which Pelosi had an important role and they gained roughly 40 seats.
