The Coming Clash of the Alpha Females (Pelosi & Clinton)

Speaker Pelosi has already made history as the first female Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives since our founding. Little wonder that rumors persist that Speaker Pelosi will endorse Obama as the Democratic Party's Presidential Nominee. After all, why would she want to have her historical moment eclipsed by the first female President of the United States? Even The Hill notes that the two women have virtually no relationship, and why should the Speaker seek one anyway?

If Senator Clinton does become the next President, we can expect a below the radar struggle between the two of them for dominance in the Capitol. The Presidency has the bully pulpit, but the Speaker is the most powerful Constitutional Officer in the United States. As the saying goes, "Congress proposes, the President disposes." Speaker Pelosi will be able to win any power struggle between the two of them simply by ignoring President Clinton's agenda or requests, or outright opposing it.

President Clinton will have to be careful not to alienate Speaker Pelosi. The last time Senator Clinton was in charge of a domestic policy initiative (Hillarycare), also with a Democratic Congress, she thought she could put a package together inside the White House and ignore the relavant Congressional leaders (Senate Finance Chairman Moynihan, House Commerce Committee Chairman Dingell and House Ways & Means Chairman Rostenkowski) and simply present Congress her own package for them to rubber stamp. Any return to that type of attitude will raise the hackles of the Speaker and her Chairman. And a Speaker is not to be trifled with - remember, Jimmy Carter's Presidency was destroyed by Speaker O'Neill, not by minority Republicans.

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.