Fluid ImaginationFrom The House Freedom Caucus push to diminish the imperial speakership:
As Republicans head into the new year with a looming razor-thin majority in the House, …a group of GOP representatives often viewed as “far right,” “radical” or even a threat to democracy…are leveraging their votes for speaker to push for the diminishment of the imperial speakership and a return of power to individual members and committees.
And they’re absolutely right.
I don’t like Rep. Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House, just as I didn’t like Sec. Hilary Clinton for President of the United States.
Does that make me a misogynist?
I didn’t worry about the epithet when I argued against nominating Sec. Clinton for President. I told myself then, and tell myself now, that if Sen. Elizabeth Warren had received the nomination, I would have voted for her with pride, and thus, I am not a misogynist.
Now we have Rep. Pelosi’s impending election as our new Speaker of the House (despite a growing rebellion), and I find myself having the same visceral reaction to Rep. Pelosi as I did to Sec. Clinton.
But if it’s not because Rep. Pelosi is another highly-qualified and well-experienced woman who has earned her seat at the head of the table, then what about Sec. Clinton and Rep. Pelosi do I find so distasteful?
I don’t think it’s because they are women. I think it’s because they both symbolize “politics as usual.”
During both the 2016 presidential campaign and the current campaign for Speaker of the House, virtually every Democratic leaning politician and pundit spoke with the utmost praise of the anointed one’s political and professional skills, and during both campaigns, virtually every Democratic leaning politician and pundit warned of the retribution any potential challenger would feel should they even enter the ring.
As Rep. Connolly from Virginia told the NY Times, “It’s a fate you fear — people worry about a future of irredeemable obscurity should they undertake that task and inevitably lose… You can look at the past, and those intrepid souls who have done it are mostly no longer here.”
But both campaigns misread the mood of the country.
President Donald Trump defeated Sec. Clinton for a number of reasons (including the will of the Russian government), but one of them was the way Mr. Trump symbolized a new kind of politics. He spoke for the tens of millions of Americans who are not just pissed off at Washington D.C., but who are so angry that they’re willing to tear down the institutions of American democracy if that’s what it takes to be heard.
In 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders represented a new kind of politics as well, but where Pres. Trump fed the fear and fury of the American people, Sen. Sanders offered progressive solutions to America’s pains.
Unfortunately, the Democrats chose to play it “safe,” and they nominated the candidate who had all of the bankers and politicians in her pocket. The Republicans, meanwhile, revolted against their party leadership and cannibalized their politicians, only to vomit up the poison in their nomination and eventual election of President Donald J. Trump.
The most recent elections demonstrate that there is a movement afoot in this country. It is best represented in the multicolored and multisexed Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. It’s a movement with momentum, but what it needs right now is a leader with unimpeachable integrity, a clear and hopeful vision, and a sense of righteous force, someone who will know they have power only because they stand at the crest of a wave.
Just as Sec. Clinton was the wrong person for 2016, Rep. Pelosi is the wrong person for 2019.
It’s not because they are women.
It’s because this is not the time for politics as usual.