Will House Democrats Allow History to Repeat Itself?

When asked to identify the most salient leftward shift of the modern Democratic party, today’s political historians may cite the nomination of George McGovern as its presidential candidate in 1972. Come January 7, 2003, this assessment may change if, as expected, Nancy Pelosi is elected by recorded public vote as the Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

McGovern’s liberalism was toxic for his party, as he was able to capture only 17 electoral votes and barely 38 percent of all ballots cast in the ’72 election. McGovern’s platform was unapologetically liberal: he campaigned on an immediate end to the Vietnam War, socialized medicine, and a guaranteed national minimum income. The radicalism of the 1972 Democratic platform was caused partly by a sense inside the party that its defeat in 1968 was caused by a failure to articulate adequately the differences between the Democrats’ agenda and that of then-candidate Nixon.

It easy to understand why this was the case. In the ’68 campaign, Nixon favored a “negative income tax,” which became the earned income tax credit and an expansion of the welfare programs begun during the Great Society, creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the Clean Air Act, dramatic increases in social service spending, and interventionist economic policies ranging from dollar devaluation to wage and price controls. During his presidency, many of these proposals became law, particularly those that could be accomplished without Congressional approval.

Yet instead of compromising with the president on the remaining agenda items, the Democrats chose the path of obstruction. Such tactics flabbergasted Nixon domestic policy aide, Daniel (Pat) Moynihan, later Democratic Senator from New York, because liberal Democrats represented “the natural constituency” for most of Nixon’s domestic policies. Yet the obstruction continued, resulting in the Nixon landslide of 1972.

In many ways, the Democrats of the 107th Congress repeated the mistakes of their predecessors in the 92nd. Fearful that the president would get the credit if legislation passed on an issue where a political consensus had been forged, Tom Daschle and the Democratically-controlled Senate opted to obstruct. On Homeland security, a federal reinsurance backstop, a patient’s bill of rights, and a Medicare prescription drug benefit, the Democrats blocked the president’s initiatives even though they represented the “natural constituency” for such growth of government.

While the Republicans will control both elected branches of government for the next two years, the Democrats’ selection of Nancy Pelosi to be the most visible face of their party sends a strong message to the nation’s voters. While Democrats have already cried foul for use of the “San Francisco liberal” moniker to describe Pelosi, the phrase, and all that it conjures, depicts her perfectly.

Pelosi has opposed every income tax reduction and market-based regulatory reform that has been proposed since she joined Congress. She sided with Americans for Democratic Action – a liberal interest group that produces a scorecard to determine how liberal a Member of Congress’ voting record really is – on 98 of the group’s past 100 key votes, http://www.adaction.org/voting.html including one abstention. Unsurprisingly, she has voted against the policy priorities of CSE at every turn, earning a zero in the 107th Congress.

To be fair, Pelosi does represent arguably the most liberal district in the House and if part of the job of a representative is to re-present the views of her constituents, she has certainly performed well: In the 2000 election, Al Gore defeated George W. Bush in Pelosi’s district by 70 percentage points. Moreover, the militant liberalism of San Francisco’s political activists does not treat moderation kindly, pushing even the solidly left-of-center further away from the mainstream.

So perhaps Congresswoman Pelosi deserves some latitude for her record. But at the same time, it is perfectly valid to wonder if her role as the Congressional voice for a socialistic and detached political culture lends itself well to the job of party leader. It would take almost superhuman mental dexterity for a San Francisco liberal to relate to the day-to-day lives, sensibilities, and economic concerns of an average family in middle America. Perhaps Congresswoman Pelosi is up to the challenge, but it sure seems far-fetched.

As the Democrats realized in time for the 1976 general election, the public did not want the Democrats to provide a “sharper focus” with the Republicans by moving to the left. They simply wanted a Democratic party that was less obsessed with electoral advantage than cooperation on common goals. The same thing is true today, but the House Democrats seemed determined to endure another November meltdown before they will be convinced of it.