I saw something recently that said Speaker Emeritus Nancy Pelosi has been at work behind the scenes engineering some changes in the House Democratic Caucus. As I recall that article said she was peeved that other older and key leaders hung her out to dry in the ‘It’s time we tell President Biden he has to step aside” movement earlier this year. That may or may not be true. What I think we can say for sure is that Pelosi did a masterful job of handing over the House Democrats to the leadership of Hakeem Jeffries. He couldn’t have asked for a classier passing of the baton or a better mentor to help him gain his footing.
It was time, well past time many said for the ‘Old Guard’ to start handing over power to a younger generation. While there was time to mentor them. Pelosi showed how it’s done with Jeffries and the House Democratic Caucus is in great hands. But Nancy Pelosi wasn’t the only person in leadership who needed to break in a younger replacement. There are others who didn’t take the hint and follow her example. However some changeover needs to happen and now is as good a time as any. In fact given the fight to come it’s essential.
Now, according to CBS News we are moving past talk and into action:
Democrats are trying to replace the veteran members on at least three key panels — the House Judiciary Committee, House Agriculture Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee — with younger leaders in the next Congress. Candidates for the positions have stressed the need to be able to effectively counter President-elect Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress
I love the idea of Jamie Raskin taking over as Ranking Member, and hopefully in two years Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Smart, quick on his feet and not only capable of ‘in the moment’ pushback against journalists doing ‘both-sider’ or ‘what about?’ question but willing to do so. We’ve needed that kind of thing from key Committee leaders (and in the Senate too) for too long. One of the big questions out there since the election is ‘Why didn’t our message break through?’ Well, having the right people in the right leadership positions forces journalists/pundits to cover things differently.
If Raskin’s bid to take over Judiciary is successful (and with Pelosi working behind the scenes I think it will be) that leaves his current job on Oversight open. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appears to be the person who would replace him. Not bad but I would love for Katie Porter to have been the one to step up. She’d have been a great Senator but she, and none of us knew how ruthless Adam Schiff was (I will have a hard time ever fully respecting him as a person again) and she never had a chance. So we will lose an incredibly powerful advocate who would have been just as effective but less polarizing. Still, AOC will I think do well in Raskin’s old job.
That leaves what seems like a boring Committee but one with immense power that’s also looking at a change. Agriculture will be getting someone new as well and so far it appears two capable candidates are putting in for the job currently held by 80 year old David Scott of Georgia who has had a run of health issues:
Rep. Jim Costa of California and Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota are both vying for the top post on the House Agriculture Committee, which would oust Rep. David Scott of Georgia, who is approaching 80 years old and has suffered a series of serious health issues.
Costa, who is 72, and Craig, who is 52, sent letters announcing their candidacies for the plum assignment to their colleagues this week. Costa said Democrats need a leader who will “bring a strong Democratic message back to rural America.” Craig championed her margin of victory in a competitive district, noting that she won by 13.5% this election cycle.
That’s not all that’s in the works. The Natural Resources Committee will likely loom large in the next couple of years, especially with Trump wanting to gut or eliminate entire Cabinet level agencies:
The top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, said he would not seek the post again next year after he received a challenge from Rep. Jared Huffman of California. Grijalva, 76, has been battling lung cancer.
“House Democrats stand as the most important bulwark against the coming attacks on our fundamental rights, democratic institutions, public lands, frontline and indigenous communities, and the livability of our planet,” Huffman, 60, wrote, adding that “effective committee work led by our ranking members will be critical to limiting the damage” from Trump’s agenda and enabling Democrats to retake the majority in two years.
Yep. It looks like a major changing of the guard is in the works. With a GOP majority that’s likely to be as unworkable as it’s been the past two years a new generation of leaders can do an awful lot to limit the damage Trump and his minions on Capitol Hill can do between now and the midterms. And, while it shouldn’t matter the plain fact is that having younger leaders who come across well on television matters. The old farts likely on their way out simply haven’t possessed that capability. But their replacements will, which again gets me back to the question I posed about why our message didn’t ‘break through.’
While she might be well into her 80s Nancy Pelosi is still as sharp as she ever was. But unlike some others she realized the time had come to start getting a new crop of key people installed and up to speed. Now, since some of her colleagues don’t seem to realize that for them too it’s time she appears to be working to move the process she started/led significantly forward. It needs to be done and there’s no time to waste.
I don’t know about you, but I’m liking what I’m seeing and hoping it turns into reality.
67 is the retirement age in the US. Anyone 70 + should b forced to retire from Congress full stop.
I’ve known people 80 and older who were still in the prime of their life. I’ve also known people only 50 who I thought ‘need to get better just to die.’ People are different and some are quite capable of high level thinking and managing great responsibilities past normal retirement age. But yes, many are not and that’s where others have to step in and make them realize it. Unfortunately we sometimes see staffers on Capitol Hill who are too fucking enamored of THEIR status as they prop up someone who’s “lost it.” Diane Feinstein isn’t the only example. I’m sure many on the GOP side felt the same way about Strom Thurmon. Robert Byrd stuck around a little too long himself. You can find examples over in the House as well.
With age and experience comes institutional wisdom that can be priceless. But there comes a time when, as Nancy Pelosi did it’s time to hand over the responsibilities of a position and mentor a successor. I’ve been critical of her at times including this year and her role in what happened with ousting Biden. Still, she handled the transition from herself to a new Democratic Leader in a way that should be an example to all. And like former Presidents (except for Trump) she’s there when needed to give perspective advice.
EXCEPT, “Mental,” 67 is NOT *THE* retirement age. That is ONLY the age when people can now retire WITH FULL SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS INTACT.
Even the Social Security Administration does NOT suggest that EVERYONE should retire at 67. It recommends that people continue to work as long as they’re able (mainly to ease the stress on the ability of the fund to continue paying in full).
And people do retire well before they’re 67. But, that usually means they have the ability to have a relatively comfortable life in retirement. There are plenty of horror stories of people retiring in their 50s and then finding their “life savings” and their “retirement nest eggs” dry up and they’re forced to try to go back to work in their 60s and 70s (I hope you don’t think all those Walmart greeters are doing the job because they really, really, really want to work).
All great news. But the minority leader? Not so much