Democrats in Congress Need to Learn How to Lead

Of the many reasons why Americans chose Barack Obama to be president in November, unquestionably one of the biggest was his ability to lead. His vision, and his ability to impart it to the electorate, drew support. It was about more than just policies and competency and ability.

Alas, since Obama has been elevated to the Oval Office, his leadership skills haven't seemed to rub off on the Democrats in Congress. While I agree with them on most policy points, I am losing patience with their innate instinct to capitulate, something that has been evident going back to when the party swept into power in the November 2006 mid-term elections, but then failed to do the very thing they were elected to do (challenge Bush on Iraq).

For example, I read today that if Obama selects New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg to be the Commerce secretary, the Democratic governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, under pressure from Republicans, may appoint a Republican replacement for Gregg, even though New Hampshire just three months ago not only voted for Obama, but ousted the other GOP U.S. Senator, John Sununu, in favor of Democrat Jeanne Shaheen.

How can the Democrats in the Senate allow this to happen? Could you imagine, for one second, Republicans in the senate allowing a Republican governor to appoint a Democratic senator without rioting? If, say, Joe Lieberman or Chris Dodd were to leave office, do you think Jodi Rell, the Republican governor of Connecticut, would appoint a Democrat to replace him? Or that Charlie Crist would appoint a Democrat to replace Bill Nelson in Florida? Or that Tim Pawlenty would choose a Democrat if Amy Klobuchar abandoned Minnesota's U.S. Senate seat? Or if any of them did, that Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl would not explode like it was halftime at the Super Bowl?

And yet, the Democrats have been silent, seemingly happy to cave and let the Republicans keep the seat in New Hampshire. What would be the point, then, of appointing Gregg in the first place?

If it was just the Senate seat, it wouldn't be a big deal. But the inability of the Democrats in Congress to lead is allowing the Republicans to exert an undue influence on policy after Obama's solid victory in November (not to mention the vastly increased Democratic majorities in the House and Senate). The American people have spoken. They want Obama's agenda enacted. But if you heard the talk in Congress, you would think the Republicans won the big races in November.

It all started with the stimulus bill in the House, where the Democrats caved to GOP demands and handed over a third of the legislation to tax cuts, even though economists of both parties agree that tax cuts are not as effective in stimulating consumer spending as government spending is. (Last week, I wrote in more detail about the Republicans pushing the failed Bush policies in their version of a stimulus bill.) And what did the Democrats get for their efforts? Not a single Republican vote.

So now the bill has moved to the Senate, and we have the Republicans talking tough again. John McCain was quoted in a Yahoo/AFP article as saying:

"We need to have in our view more tax cuts and less spending."

McCain knows he lost in November, right? He knows he presented the American people with a vision that included continuing the Bush administration's economic policies, including more tax cuts, while Obama offered a different plan, including stimulus spending to jump-start the economy, and America chose Obama's plan, right? Of course he does. But he obviously doesn't care. And why? Because he knows that the Democrats haven't shown the ability to lead.

Let's face it, the Republicans are talking one game, while playing another. They are pretending to be opposed to the stimulus bill only because of its makeup, as if there is a spending plan they would sign on to. And they're using this bogus argument as a way of trying to push through more tax cuts, the very failed policy that was rejected by voters in November. They are still trying to abide by the Bush administration rule of serving the wealthy at the expense of average Americans.

The question is: What are the Democrats in congress going to do about it? Are they going to roll over like they have for the past two years and give the Republicans what they want? (Just as McCain seems to think they will.) Or are they going to grow a pair and stand up not just for what they believe to be right, but, as importantly, what they were put in office by the electorate to do?

The Democrats let those voters that elected them down between 2007 and 2008 by not standing up to Bush on Iraq. Now the test is standing up to the failed policies being pushed by the Republicans in Congress. Maybe having Obama in the White House will help them find their footing. While Obama has tried to act in a bipartisan manner, I can't believe he will allow his first major piece of legislation to be hijacked and/or killed by the GOP.

This is the moment for congressional Democrats to decide what they want to be, if they want to be leaders like Obama, or if they want to be doormats, like they have been since taking control. Sure, the economic recovery depends on their ability to take charge, but the stakes are even larger than just that. This is just the first battle. If they fold here, the Republicans will know they can obstruct any initiative they want to block, and Obama's agenda will be doomed.

Sadly, the fate of Obama's policies lies in the hands of Democrats in Congress. Hopefully, he can help them do better than they've done in the last two years. His presidency just may depend on it.

Comments

[ebanks84]

How come non-leaders are always the ones who can tell LEADERS what to do? Leaders get to be leaders because they know HOW TO LEAD. Non-leaders are too busy trying to figure out how it's done.

[escrow7]

How can they lead when the only measure of success is how much money they get for their state or constituents. This is not leadership. I have not seen leadership from a politician in a long time.

http://www.thirdeyechronicles.com

[ArchAngel]

Remember when the likes of Liberman and Bush recently promised before the last elections, that the troops will soon start to come home?

Just watch, a couple of years from now, the bulk of US troops will still be in the Middle East. They will make a big televised deal out of a few brigades coming home. But they won't show you the others returning.

That's why there is no "leadership".

It's only spin and lies to control reaction to an agenda that the American public does not know about and would never agree to.

[jhamm1]

"The Democrats let those voters that elected them down between 2007 and 2008 by not standing up to Bush on Iraq."

Actually, make that "2002 to 2008", all culminating in cowardly masses that cowered under conservative demands for fear of being perceived as soft on national security.

[nancytheragingliberal]

Jhamm1. You are correct. Pelosi and Reid need to go now. I am disgusted with the dems, so weak, cowardly, spineless, timid...I could go on and on. They never learn, never. It would not surprise me at all, when repubs. pull power back. Losing to O., was just a slight distraction, but they will be back in power, in no time. The dems' never know how to go for the jugular, but they were fabulous in years past. They lost their drive, guts and fighting abilities, as you said from 2002 to 2008. They are a major disappointment. Major.

[Pulitic-Gu2]

I completely agree with this article. I have become SO frustrated with the Democrats since 2006. They have done nothing but cave in, and I am especially talking about Harry Reid. He is so soft on the Repubs and caves in to them every chance he gets. The Repubs are the minority party now, and are everything except completely irrelevant. We saw that in the election. Now, the Dems are (once again) giving in to the Repubs even though the Repubs are outnumbered.

Obama tried compromise, and the Repubs didn't give him ONE vote. If Obama makes the slightest mistake (stimulus package) the Repubs are going to blame him in the next election cycle. If the Dems continue caving in to the Repubs, the Democrats will lose seats in 2010 to the Republicans.

[WorldGriot]

What the republicans understand that the democrats do not is that leadership is 90% theater! Your policies are only10 percent of leadership. The democrats seem to miss the point that having Pelosi and Reid out front is disastrous not because they are incompetent but because they do not present very well. Pelosi stammers over every sentence and Reid speaks like a wimp. Now I know these two people are not wimpish nor weak but they present that way and it is very hard not to assume weak and wimpish just by their demeanor. When Rahm Emanuel was in the congress, I cringed to get him to the microphones whenever the group was on stage together. Of the 4 people in the democratic leadership in congress, only Rahm had the gravitas to galvanize attention. This is strictly theatrics. so we need to either get the democrats to buff up their presentation skills or put another face up front. if we don't we are going to lose this baby. Has anyone noticed that not since Tip O'Neil have we had a powerful speaker from the democrats. save for his stupid right-wing ideology, Newt Gingrich was more like Tip O'Neil than any other democratic speaker that I can recall. Lord save us!

[chinshihtang]

You guys are looking at the weeds instead of the forest. Gregg is a talented guy, and Obama is right to bring him into the Administration. If the cost of that is that he doesn't pick up a Senate vote, well, he wasn't going to pick one up with Daschle, or Richardson, either.

On the other hand, it will cut deeply into the strength of the Republicans in the Senate as they attempt to present a coherent opposition, particularly on the economic front, where their position has never looked weaker.

Obama may or may not have a chance to co-opt Gregg himself into his Movement (I'd say he's got a glimmer), but he's got a very good chance to co-opt the remaining million or so N.E. liberal Republicans who are still hanging around in the Grossly Overpaid Party.

And, yes, Mitchell, the Republicans would never allow such a thing (as Gregg's move). That's why they're losing, at long last.

[gdogs]

So what you are saying is that since the Republicans lost the election they should abandon their principles and stop representing the views of the Americans that voted "them" into office? That's more than a little ridiculous.

The reason why a Republican is being named as a replacement is because it is the only way Gregg was willing to accept the nomination. Keep in mind that Obama wanted him, not the other way around.

BTW, tax cuts weren't rejected by the American people. I've never seen an American opposed to tax cuts. Tax cuts weren't the reason the McCain lost the election. To say that the reason Obama won is because the people rejected "failed" tax cut policy is disingenuous at best.

[BUTCHER111]

I don’t think it’s a matter of Republicans of giving up on their principles, it is the Democrats standing up for theirs. BUT the GOP sure isn’t acting like they lost the election and that the American People rejected their failed policies. When the GOP ran both houses of Congress and the White House they spent like drunken sailors. But now all of a sudden they start talking about the national debt and controlling spending. Clearly when their policies ran up the debt and led to the current problems they didn’t care but now only seem to care cause the Democrats are in charge. The GOP still stands for the same old thing.

[artisthawk]

A small group has captured the Republican Party. The decent Republicans need to get it back and figure out what those principles are. As of now, they are just obstructionist because they can.While they are busy recovering, maybe Obama can work with the Congress and pull us out of this mess he was left by a President who administered by prayer and "instincts" as he put it, and the advice of two men in secret meetings, instead of deliberation and measured and thoughtful decisions gained by reason, knowledge of the common man's life, and intellect.

[gdogs]

You do realize that the principles they will all "figure out" is that Republicans are against big government spending? You think they are obstructionists now? Just wait until they really find their roots.

I fully understand (and have no problems with) the "you lost, we won" line of thought, just don't try and call that bipartisanship. Democrats won, so let them pass what they want. The Republicans are not going to vote for this bill without a lot more concessions. If the Democrats don't want to give in, then fine, they can pass it without them.

The reason the Democrats aren't willing to do this isn't because they don't have the guts, it's because they know this package isn't going to stimulate the economy. They just don't want to be on the line for this irresponsible spending bill by themselves.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Tax cuts are a FAILED policy. Tax cuts for the wealthy didn't create one single job, nor did they increase revenue into government coffers.

Supply-side economics was tried three times under three Republican Presidents, each failing bigger than before.

It's time to return to Demand-side economics.

[brighterlight]

ReThuglicans have no principles. Evidence the last eight years: Enron, Iraq, Bailout... principles, guess again.

[Pete2069]

Bush's tax cuts for the elite , corporations are one of the main reasons (plus the illegal war) our economy has been destroy...

[independentrepublicrat]

I agree with you about the need for Democrats to exercise leadership. However, as I commented last week, it is not just those in Congress but the new prez as well. In modern American politics, the republicans rule whether they are the majority or the minority; they don't roll over even now when they have dwindled in the past two elections. They are still the ruling party even though they currently have been reduced by 2/3 to only having majority control over the Supreme Court. Independents are stuck having no good choice of voting for wingnuts or wimpnuts.

[Aaror]

I hate to suggest this, but perhaps it is time for the people of the democratic party to petition our leaders in the house and senate to step down as leaders.
Perhaps new leaders would serve us better.
Pelosi and Reed can still have power, and serve their districts, but we need leaders who lead.

[deeppeace]

You said it so much more nicely than I could.

[BUTCHER111]

Harry Reed might not have a choice cause the GOP I targeting his seat in 2010 and might lose.

[wadenelson1]

>I am losing patience with congressional Democrats' innate instinct to capitulate, something that has been evident since the November 2006 mid-term elections.

AMEN!

[johnsopinion]

Following along on this article, I said several "Amen's" and plunged on.

Then I got to this part:

"While Obama has tried to act in a bipartisan manner, I can't believe he
will allow his first major piece of legislation to be hijacked and/or killed
by the GOP.
This is the moment for congressional Democrats to decide what they
want to be, if they want to be leaders like Obama, or if they want to be
doormats, like they have been since taking control."

and it hit me. The key word is in the second phrase "I can't believe he
will allow HIS first major piece of legislation to be .........".

And there-in lies the problem, this is where we get bogged down in politics.

Practically every single member of the House and practically every single
member of the Senate, and apparently many of us out here, see each piece
of legislation as being a personal possession! Being 'personal possessions'
means that many bills will also be the "hill they are willing to die for!"
MY bill, HIS bill, THEIR bill!

News Flash! It doesn't matter one whit to me WHOSE bill it is if it's the
RIGHT bill!
Don't debate the proposer, the ploy or the leverage. Debate the merits!

[BUTCHER111]

You think Republicans will debate the merits on bills? I wouldn’t recommend holding your breath on that.

[Gronkie]

Republicans respect big brass ones, and until Dems know how to grow them and then swing them at their opponent's craniums, they will get walked on. They should rewrite the stuimulus package by removing anything with a whiff of Republicanism, and then make the Democrats all unite behind it and use their majorities to force it down the Republican's throats. Then when there is an offer of bipartisanship the next time, maybe the Repubs will accept what they get offered.

[Gronkie]

The main problem with the Democratic party is that there are two types of elected Dems - the Old School and the New School. The Old School types include Pelosi, Ried, and Kerry, and their weak leadership and inability to stand up for themselves and their policies (in spite of full support of the American people) led to a second Bush term. The New School is represented by the Dems that were elected in 2006 and 2008, like Jim Webb. They know they were elected to take this country back from the traitorous Republicans and they are more than willing to wade in into the fracas and mix it up. Unfortunately it is the old style weaklings that are at the leadership helm, and Obama needs to ask for their resignations and replace them with new Dems that are willing to fight for Obama's mandate.

[dogwatch]

Jim Webb is a fighter on multiple levels.

[JeffyBoy]

I like a good fight !!!

[Taiyo]

Great post! Hope someone's paying attention.

[Gronkie]

As a radically independent voter, I have been very angry at the Republicans over the last decade (at least), and in the last election, I voted entirely for Democrats. However, I knew that the Dems would sson make me angry at them as well, and their inability to stand up to Republican bullying is the start. The Dems OWN the government right now, and they need to start to re-shape it immediately. I totally agree that the Republicans are acting like they won the election, and the Dems are letting them. They need to be slapped down hard, and it should start with a comprehensive investigation of Republican corruption of the last eight years. Those arrogant jerks will be too busy finding deep holes to hide in to get in the way of progress.

[Shifted]

That's the truth. Give them something to get their attention in the right place . . . their own survival. I give it to the Rethugs, they are true to the "Game". Godfathers from the Old School.