Pelosi, Kennedy, and Why the DCCC Can't Have It Both Ways

Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-MA) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

The Democratic Party has a lot of leaders, but only a few on the top.  Generally a political party will have the current or most recent President & Vice President, their nominee for the next election, and the current Senate/House leader as the people that are indisputably leading the party.  There might be others (certainly Hillary Clinton has a lot of sway in the party right now), but these are the big ones, and as a result Nancy Pelosi has been in this echelon for the longest time.  She became House Minority Leader in 2003 with the resignation of Dick Gephardt, and has been Speaker for three non-consecutive terms since then, and seems probable to be in that position for a fourth & final term starting in January provided her leads hold in November.  She is a hero to many Democrats (myself included), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't question when someone like Pelosi, arguably the savviest politician in DC, does something atypical in a congressional race, and whether or not we're towing a "what's good for you isn't good for me" situation.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, let me illuminate you-this morning, Speaker Pelosi endorsed in one of the last competitive congressional races of the cycle, in Massachusetts for Senate. Pelosi generally does not get involved in competitive congressional campaigns, other than to endorse incumbents (she did so recently in the competitive MN-5 race on the behalf of Ilhan Omar, for example).  Pelosi always supports House incumbents in primaries-it's the policy of the DCCC, to the chagrin of some progressive challengers who were angered by the so-called "blacklisting" of consultants who work for challengers against House incumbents.  This policy makes sense for Pelosi particularly since all of her power as Speaker comes from her caucus.  Someone like Henry Cuellar or Dan Lipinski might be to the right of their district, and Pelosi's politics may more naturally match their primary opponents, but both these men voted for Pelosi as Speaker, with the clear understanding that she would not abandon them in their hour-of-need.

In some ways, she's doing the same thing with Joe Kennedy.  Kennedy is a member of Pelosi's caucus-he voted for her in January of 2019 to become Speaker, and as a result she's doing the same thing she would normally do.  While Ed Markey served for decades with Pelosi in the House, he's not a member of her caucus anymore, and she doesn't have the incentive to keep him happy in the way that she does Kennedy.  But while I understand the logic here, I do think it's inappropriate to go against an incumbent like Markey in this way, because it puts House incumbents in a unique position that isn't afforded to other liberal challengers, and enforces a process that values elitism rather than a level playing-field.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Pelosi

This is because Pelosi's endorsement means something.  It might not practically mean anything in terms of actual votes in Massachusetts, but her endorsement is a signal to her supporters and financial donors that she wants them to get behind Kennedy, not Markey.  Kennedy's politics are to the right of Markey's in a lot of ways-he's running on youth and his famous name more than he is against Markey's views on issues, and so this appears to be based on political pragmatism for Pelosi to have a stronger ally in a Senate seat, rather than something based on politics (because, again, Lipinski/Cuellar wouldn't have gotten her support if that were the case).  But it runs counter to Pelosi's & the DCCC's belief that we should back incumbents because they're the best candidates for the job, because if that were the case Ed Markey would have gotten the endorsement (or more likely, she would have just stayed out of the race).  It feels a whole lot like this is a case of "we protect incumbents...but only my incumbents."

This sort of stepping over-the-line comes at a perilous point for House Democrats.  In 2020, eight incumbents have so far lost reelection in primaries, the most for a non-redistricting year since Watergate; three of those incumbents were Democrats, none of which was involved with a scandal, and in the case of all three the candidates ran largely to the left of the challenger (as well as on constituent service issues).  It is becoming clear with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as well as these three challengers (Marie Newman, Cori Bush, & Jamaal Bowman), that there is some appetite to throw out longtime incumbents for not being progressive enough.  It becomes more difficult for me to buy into the Speaker/DCCC's arguments to protect incumbents against these challengers when they're essentially now backing a similar sort of challenger in the Senate.  Particularly considering that Markey is the rare incumbent who has won the backing of this movement (the Markey supporters seem to mirror the same people who backed Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Newman/Bush/Bowman thanks to his more left-leaning policies, particularly in terms of the Green New Deal), this feels like it will sow more, not less, unrest in the movement who are clamoring for new leadership in sharp blue seats in the 2020's, running counter to the DCCC's belief in backing incumbents.  I've largely stood behind the DCCC in this belief, but after today I have to question the rationale-if the House Democrats are willing to bend their rules against someone like Markey to help one of their own, I don't understand why resources or political capital should be expended on people like Eliot Engel or Lacy Clay who are in the same position.