Charlie Rangel paid his dues to become the chairman of the powerful House Ways & Means committee. He was elected in 1970. He is now 79 years old. The Democrats use a rather strict seniority system, which meant that Rangel had to bide his time (thirty-seven years) before he could take over the chair. It is no small thing to take that chair away from him. But, unfortunately, that is what must be done. Rangel’s misdemeanors are relatively minor but they are not trivial. The Democratic Party has to protect its brand and cannot allow blatant ethics violations to go unpunished. I wish Rangel had been more conscientious about reporting his income and following the rules of the House, but he wasn’t.
I am a big supporter of the Congressional Black Caucus, but I get upset when they rally their support behind members who have clearly violated the public trust. They made a big stink about stripping William Jefferson of his committee assignments after a ton of ill-gotten cash was found in his freezer. That was stupid. Now a Republican is representing his New Orleans district. The CBC is now telling Nancy Pelosi that she better not mess with Rep. Rangel. This is equally short-sighted. There is no benefit to attaching yourself to a sinking ship.
The question of a successor to Rangel is a legitimate subject for debate. By seniority, the position should go to the only self-professed atheist in Congress, Representative Pete Stark of California. However, Stark makes a lot of people uncomfortable. He recently called the Blue Dogs ‘brain-dead.’ He’s an outspoken liberal who would undoubtedly create some tensions between the Democratic Party and the corporate world. That doesn’t bother me, but I acknowledge that it has some downside.
The other options are Sander Levin of Michigan, Jim McDermott of Washington, Richard Neal of Massachusetts, and John Lewis of Georgia. McDermott and Lewis are almost as liberal as Stark, but Lewis is a hero of the civil rights movement and would salve the wound of losing Rangel. Levin and Neal are not exactly moderates, but they’re considered experts on tax policy and have solid relationships with the business community.
I don’t really care what Pelosi does as long as she faces reality and forces Rangel out of the chair. I don’t think Pete Stark should be denied the position just because he’s hostile to the business community. But, he might be denied the position on other grounds, like his temperament and ability to lead the committee.
I personally like Charlie Rangel a lot. It pains me to recommend his ouster. But he has made some significant mistakes and the party cannot afford to look the other way.
I don’t think Pete Stark should be denied the position just because he’s hostile to the business community.
We’ve seen where being too friendly to the business community has gotten us. Besides, it would be fun to see Stark smack down idiots with non-PC language.
So long as you recognize that a big part of this is about protecting the brand. Yes, the immediate problems are related to Rangel’s actions, but if you want to solve a problem, you should not wind up with a solution that leads you halfway back to where you started.
Is there anything that could possibly be done about the Democrats’ slavish adherence to the seniority system?
A week or so ago, Ezra Klein (I think) posted about how the GOP succeeds in greater control over its members precisely because it eschews the seniority system: i.e., legislators who don’t fall in line with the party can and are stripped of committee assignments.
well, part of the problem is that black members of Congress have been told for 40 years that they can’t chair committees because that is determined by seniority. Now that several black members have put in the time, it’s pretty hard to turn around and tell them that the rules have changed.
There are ways around that, I suppose, but no clean ways.
And no way that will avoid out-right rebellion from the CBC and those they represent. Congresscritters have been ethically-challenged ever since there’s been a Congress, so stripping Rangel of his chairmanship for anything less than an issue that would have him expelled from the House will be greeted with a hail of heartfelt f-bombs…
That’s right.
Probably, but perhaps there’s another way of appeasing the caucus, if Rangel is stripped?
wouldn’t elevating lewis accomplish that?
l think boo implied that.
I’m pretty sure that there are several members of the caucus who would be more than adequately qualified for the job. Make an exception to the seniority rules and appoint one. It’s a win for everyone: the party gets to protect its image, the CBC gets to protect its interests, and the act itself would put a crack in the seniority system that could be exploited and widened by future reformers.
Whatever happens, it’s crucial that the Democratic Party police itself, or the voters will do it for us, and based on past experience, they will do it in a way that is damaging to everyone: by replacing a modestly corrupt Democrat with a well-connected member of the GOP crime family.