Dingell vs. Pelosi

New York Times Story


This week’s National Journal article on the conflict between Chairman Dingell and Speaker Pelosi over the shape of future energy legislation illustrates a point I have long maintained: leadership of small majorities is inherently different than the leadership of large majorities.

Speaker Pelosi has demonstrated that she inherently grasps this concept by adopting the Republican model of using the Committees as an extension of the House Leadership, and bypassing committees entirely when they likely wouldn’t obey leadership’s desires as Republicans did with abortion-related issues and the Energy & Commerce Committee or alternatively creating new Committees to bypass those found troubling a la the new Global Climate panel. Like Speakers Gingrich and Hastert before her, Speaker Pelosi rewards those who fall in line, or need fundraising help, with seats on so-called “A Committees” or “Super A Committees” depending on the party by using the Democratic version of the Republican Steering Committee to dole these seats out. These Committees happen to be: Ways & Means, Energy & Commerce, and Appropriations.

Large majorities, such as those the Democrats enjoyed for approximately 70 years before Gingrich Revolution (give or take a few Congresses), and those enjoyed by Republicans for the 70 years prior than that have a different dynamic. The House Leadership needs to adopt a Laissez-faire attitude towards Committees because the larger the majority, the larger and more numerous the competing party factions it contains, and Leadership needs to spend more time negotiating and finessing the fissures among these factions. This leaves far less time for involvement in policy development per se.

Chairman Dingell hails from “Old Bull” era of large majorities when House Committee Chairmen were all Barons with their Committees as their individual fiefdoms. The new arrangement must be somewhat of a shock to the Committee Chairmen like Dingell who have been around for a while and remember the days of their former glory.

For personal reasons I wish him well in the conflict over the shape of energy legislation.