I did this research for a comment in response to Madman in the Marketplace. But since it required a lot of effort and is useful information, I will share it with everyone.
Every committee in Congress has a chairperson from the majority party and a ranking member from the minority party. The seats are basically assigned by seniority and by the assent of the caucuses. It almost all cases, the ranking member stands to become the chairperson if control of Congress switches from one party to the other. There are some exceptions to that rule, but the fact that Arlen Specter remains the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee is a powerful reminder of how much deference is payed to seniority when assigning these positions. Of course, the GOP constantly threatens to remove Arlen, which keeps him in line.
The Democrats in the House have been out of power for 12 years. Many of their more moderate members have been beaten, as the GOP has come to dominate the south. As a result, many of the most liberal members of the House have risen to the position of Ranking Member. Using the Progressive Punch ranking system I lay out where members stand on the scale of progressivism. I give their number (which is a percentage of how often they vote the ‘progressive’ position), and then their rank. A rank of ‘1’ would mean that they are the most progressive member of the House. 435 would be the lowest. Raul Grijalva (AZ-07) is ranked as the most progressive member. Gene Taylor (MS-04) is ranked 202, the least progressive Democrat. For further clarity on where members stand, I will give you the scores of some well known members. Members that rank in the top 25% for progressive issues (in the whole House) are bolded. Members that are ranked in the top 25% of the Democratic caucus are underlined:
Nancy Pelosi 93.6, 22nd most progressive member
Bernie Sanders 92.7, 30
Cynthia McKinney 90.45, 43
Dennis Kucinich 86.84, 86
RANKING MEMBERS
Agriculture: Collin Peterson (MN) 57.4, 199
Appropriations: David Obey (WI) 87.7, 69
Armed Services: Ike Skelton (MI) 59.26, 198
Budget: John Spratt (SC) 75.66, 155
Education: George Miller (CA) 93.54, 24
Energy and Commerce: John Dingell (MI) 84.29, 112
Ethics: Howard Berman (CA) 86.21, 87
Financial Services: Barney Frank (MA) 92.8, 28
Goverment Reform: Henry Waxman (CA), 91,86, 35
Homeland Security: Bennie Thompson (MS), 86.0, 98
House Administration: Juanita Millender-McDonald (CA) 86.87, 85
International Relations: Tom Lantos (CA), 87.06, 81
Intelligence: Jane Harman (CA), 75.19, 159 but rumored to be going to Alcee Hastings (FL), 87.76, 70
Judiciary: John Conyers, Jr. (MI), 93.62, 21
Resources: Nick Rahall (WV), 75.58, 156
Rules: Louise McIntosh Slaughter (NY), 90.37, 44
Science: Bart Gordon (TN), 63.83, 182
Small Business: Nydia M. Velazquez (CA), 94.11, (tied) 11
Transportation: James Oberstar (MN), 86.51, 93
Veteran’s Affairs: Bob Filner (CA), 93.67, 20
Ways and Means: Charlie Rangel (NY), 90.12, 46
What this demonstrates is that Progressives stand to dominate a new Congress on most issues. Madman has no faith that a new minted Democratic majority will have any more balls than the old party. He’s almost certainly wrong. A basic look at the ranking members tells the story.
I gotta admit, I’m surprised that Bernie Sanders is ranked as far down as he is.
His ranking is hurt badly by his low ranking on agricultural subsidies. That’s a result of being the main man on dairy farming.
My own Congressman, Jim McDermott, is ranked #10 in the House. He’s not on this list, which is a shame.
I can’t help but think that under the cover of being in the majority — and a majority that looks like it will be swept in pretty handily, if the good FSM’s willin’ and the creek don’t rise and all the tea leaves are telling us true — more Democrats will be willing to speak their mind and vote their conscience. Of course His Nibs has been saving his veto stick for just such an occasion; let’s see him actually start vetoing legislation that does things like raise the minimum wage. (How much of a Democratic House’s agenda will be echoed by whatever the Senate turns out to be is another question; we’ll just have to see on that one.)
McDermott is the fourth ranking member of Ways and Means. Ben Cardin is third, and will be our next Senator from Maryland. So McDermott moves up to number three.
Certainly an excellent place for him.
You’re assuming, of course, that seniority still means something:
Seniority is a matter of rules and tradition, NOT statute. Pelosi will come under intense attack when they start the new term, as will many of the others on your list.
Given the “we’re like Republicans, only NICER” strategies of Emmanuel and Hoyer, I fully expect them to ape the Republicans IF they take the House. Loud arguments will be made that the House members must be “careful” not to give the Republicans ammuntion to be used in ’08, so that they can’t be used against Clinton or whatever other center-right corporatist hacks is pushed forward as the nominee. Genuine progressives will be frozen out, or if they win the battle, the caucus will be so bloodied and torn by the fight that they’ll be rendered ineffective.
Your faith in these people is touching. Sadly, there is little or no evidence that it is justified.
who might be progressive elsewhere, but an iraq war supporter and all around israel hawk. nice to have him chairing int’l relations.
actually, if the seniority holds (if), the house will be a whole hell of a lot better than the senate. our best case scenario in that sorry house has the place virtually run by the gang of 14.
You’re right about this, Madman.
My only quibble: She won’t do this necessarily because the cmte chairs are progressive but because she’s leadership and as such, wants a tighter rein on how things are run. This was never a “reform” in the so-called “repub revolution” in the sense that it would help bring about better laws, but a way for leadership to exert control. Why else would Gingrich put relatively green members on some subcmtes or cmtes? The message is sent (you could be next) and leadership controls the agenda by controlling folks who don’t really know what they’re doing.
Seniority, after all, was used by Dixiecrats to bottle up legislation they didn’t like, i.e. anti-lynching laws & civil rights laws. The Dixiecrats, now that they’re rethugs, don’t have to worry necessarily about bills they want getting through or bills they want stifled, since they have been in charge, by and large.
But for Progressives? Um…in a word, no. In fact, two words: “hell no.” Because some of the most retrograde elements ran the rethugs, they were unafraid to exercise power and to thumb their noses at any moderate who tried to criticize. We don’t do that: we are obsessed with being “responsible” and will listen to any tripe that’s pushed out there.
That, combined with a leadership that controls the agenda (which has nothing to do with ideology, but power) and there you have it.
None of this should come as news to House progressives. It is my hope that a game plan is in place. I hope we’ve learned that we have to learn the institution like the Dixiecrats did. They used the rules, the traditions and knowledge of the arcane to their advantage. Seniority, in the right hands, can be a good thing.
Of course, I’m having a whole “Cart; Horse,” moment anyway. Let’s see if any of this comes to pass.
But assuming that it does: Sorry to say, but this is something we’re going to have watch. It is ENTIRELY possible. In fact, it is entirely probable.
Of course, the recipient of your research won’t give a shit because the role Madman sees for himself is as a voice for the extreme edge of liberalism and such extremists by temperament are always so sure of themselves that they never listen.
You have proved your point, a Democratic House will be more progressive. The question is whether they will have the courage to lead in the face of constant attacks, or lie down and let Bush and the media set the agenda. I agree with Madman that Emmanuel and Hoyer are less than worthless. We need progressive challengers for them next cycle.
extreme edge? Is that the filthy hippie edge, the feminazi edge or the clueless peacenik edge?
Oh, and other than that, nothing to say about my point that seniority doesn’t MEAN anything anymore?
that typical of your argument style. Ignoring inconvenient facts.
First you ignore that the GOP’s reforms on seniority were actually a positive that were wiped out by their other actions. The original reforms on seniority were made by the Class of ’74 that eliminated chairs for life.
Second, you suggest that the Democratic caucus will seek to emulate the GOP. Third, you fail to give any evidence to support your contention.
Here is a fact. The only ranking member that is currently rumored (on the hill, not conspiracy blogs) to be at risk of being denied their chair is Jane Harman. Apparently, Pelosi is not happy with her performance. The rumored replacement? The second ranking member BY SENIORITY, Alcee Hastings.
Hastings is black, he is more progressive than Harman, and he has a controversial background that would provide justification for denying him such a sensitive position (if that was what Pelosi wanted to do).
Back up you claims with anything. And where is your list of third-party candidates?
evidence? I’ve been watching the Democratic Party fumble every opportunity, slide ever more to the right and abandon their base for more than two decades. Your list, impressive as it is, is no more evidence or fact than MY observations. We look at the same thing and see different outcomes. Time will tell who is right.
yeah right.
Like you knew what the progressive ranking of the ranking members was before I told you.
You’re not looking for evidence, you have an agenda, which is transparently to drive down turnout and encourage people to vote for non-Democrats.
You make no distinction between Democrats. Where is your list of third party candidates? I’m waiting.
See, my concern is, if you don’t have such a list or cannot speedily produce one, that you are serious about third party candidates.
Have you even examined the policy positions of any of the over 400 democrats running for the house? Surely some of them would be able to garner your support? Care to list a few challegers that you think might share your values? How about 3? Just three?
C’mon, you can do that? Surely, right?
No?
Oh, I forgot, we can’t reward bad behavior by voting the Democrats into power because they might get the wrong idea and think they are popular.
You got me, I don’t spend much time worry about arbitrary rankings. What good is it in a party where someone like Sherrod Brown, #53 on that list, crosses the aisle to destroy the Great Writ? Hell, that site ranks Holy Joe, enabler of tyrants, at 39 in the Senate, with very good ratings on many issues. It doesn’t make him any less worthless on issues that really count.
I support Bryan Kennedy, running against the excreble Sensenbrenner, with little or no help from the party. Go give him some love.
I’ll be voting for Ray Vogeler on the Green line against the worthless, barely there Herb Kohl.
I pay attention to local races now, as the national party is worthless.
wow, i tried to give you a break and only ask for three third-party candidates to support and you gave me one.
Outstanding.
You’re clearly very involved in the third-party movement you claim to support.
You only focus on local races….and ranking on Democrats. All you do is follow the Dems to see when they fold on things and then you rank on them.
Shit, I can’t forgive Sherrod Brown’s cowardice either…and I said so.
So, who are the third party candidates for OH-Sen?
I bet you don’t even know. Don’t cheat and google it.
I’m calling you on this bullshit. I never said people should shut up and get behind the party, but your focus is bizarre at this time of year.
It’s negativity all the time.
I just found out that Patrick Murphy (PA-08) is ahead by 4 points in a new DCCC poll. You know what? That’s got me excited. You know why? Because he is a great guy from a great family with a great wife that is going to go to Washington and make things just a little bit better.
That’s what we’re all working for. I have no idea what you are working for, except to drive down turnout and make everyone cynical. I think we’re all pretty cynical around here already.
One third-party candidate in the whole country that you can identify for us to vote for in this upcoming election. And you expect me to take your call for third party voting seriously?
How about here in PA, where the Green Party is the wholly owned subsidiary of the Rick Santorum campaign and was kicked off the ballot?
You might remember I supported Pennacchio. I lost. I decided to focus on other things, like PA-06-07-08-10. Four seats we are going to win. Four seats that will no longer belong to DeLay style republicans.
you’re a better man than I, Gunga Din.
Your non-responsiveness is just trollish.
Seriously.
Do you seriously have no rebuttal to this?
That’s telling.
WTF?
You seriously can’t tell me of any candidates to support? You seriously cannot back up your claim that the DLC is going to strip Conyers, Waxman, Thompson, Frank, Slaughter, etc. of their seniority?
You’ve got nothing. All you have is your assertion that the Dems have moved to the right for 20 years. When I point out that the House is poised to move sharply to the left and I back that up with an hour of research, you come back with gunga din?
At what point am I to begin to wonder about your sincerity when it comes to supporting what you ostensibly support.
I have always given you the benefit if the doubt, but today’s performance is really making me wonder.
what, I don’t jump through your hoops, so that means I have no basis for what I think?
Really, I’m past caring about races in other states, especially with two parties that suck up to scared, ignorant suburban white people while they ignore huge swaths of the population.
And again, when I don’t dance to your tune, I’m called a troll. Meanwhile, the leader of this so-called party is joining his wife on triangulating on torture.
So he’d destroy what this country stands for, only he’d keep a layer of bureaucracy over the process. This is the modern Democratic Party.
I’m headed for DL, but one last exchange.
You don’t. And therefore it is impossible to credit you with sincerity.
If there is nothing you support there is no option for the people that would agree with you on the surface.
Telling Democrats not to vote at this moment in history can only be interpreted as a fear that Democrats will take control of a slice of power. To believe otherwise, I’d have to see an awareness of the third-party candidates across the nation that you support. You don’t have any, so I can’t give you any more benefit of the doubt.
If you were serious, LSF would have been raising money or giving free media to real alternatives.
It’s not asking you to jump through hoops and it isn’t saying that nothing you say has merit. It’s just an observation about where you stand and how sincere you are.
Are you really hoping the GOP retains their power so that things can get worse so that…what?
so the only way to be “serious” is to raise/make money or be an activist?
I’m a writer, a critic, a polemicist. I never pretended to be an activist. What I am is a citizen and a voter, and that is all that is necessary in this supposedly free country to make commentary on the state of my government.
When you accept or raise money, people begin to pull your strings … a fact of life for which there is ample evidence in many of the “liberal” blogs.
I’m a writer, a critic, a polemicist.
A damn good one.
thank you.
you’re welcome.
Suprised that all of the links to “donate” don’t accept food stamps. I mean, if that’s all that counts…
How do you know the methodology was arbitrary when you have no idea what the methodology was? You probably don’t agree with which issues they chose to call progressive, nor with the weight they chose to give each issue, but it is extremely insulting to call their choices arbitrary when you haven’t even bothered to see what they were.
Term limiting chairmanships came in w/ Newt, which was a CLEAR sign that legislative control would shift from cmtes to leadership. As did awarding plum positions based more on loyalty and not as much on seniority–including chairmanships.
There’s nothing to say what Pelosi will do. But don’t think it hasn’t been noted that the structure Gingrich instituted wasn’t perceived to be all that bad…by those in leadership.
This isn’t about ideology but power (see above). It makes it harder for Members to exercise their independence. So…if she thinks that a Conyers (or anyone, whether Blue Dog or DLC or CHC … whoever) won’t play ball, she may opt to keep the term limits on chairmanships and may opt to bypass seniority when selecting chairs.
(Of course, Alcee Hastings getting a chairmanship would be very sweet for him, since the House hasn’t always been very kind to him.)
I’m not saying that she’ll definitely do that. I haven’t heard that. But it’s not beyond possibility. I just wouldn’t refer to this as a fear of a progressive purge but a leadership power play–that may disproportionately affect progressives.
that’s assuming that the Speaker even becomes Pelosi. I’m convinced that Hoyer and the other Blue Dogs/DLC scum will work to block her.
…Like a Jack Murtha challenge. And don’t think Pelosi will shed any tears over it if it comes to pass.
One day, I’ll have to write a posting a/b Hoyer’s political evolution. He wasn’t always seen as more conservative. Part of that was redistricting (from mainly Prince George’s to some of Prince George’s–some may say the “whiter” areas–and Southern MD, including Charles Co. and points south. Prince George’s is a large county, majority African-American and a Dem stronghold that’s actually has 3 Reps., Hoyer, Van Hollen and Wynn, but Wynn represents the lion’s share of the county).
Part of it are “the political realities.”
But part of it is history.
In my opinion, you’re on the Horowitz-lite, holier-than-thou, fight-the-corrupt-system extreme edge that mainly feels powerful by disagreeing with everything mainstream and is in most ways indistinguishable from the extreme edge of conservatism. Phrase it however you want, Booman is right this time: your goals for the next month are exactly the same as Republican goals.
actually, I am Horowitz’s evil doppleganger … I come out of the mirror when he sleeps, like Niki Sanders on “Heroes”.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Now I’m off to my meeting with Ralph Nader so that we can plot the end of western civilization in the name of our communist Red Chinese masters!
I hope all of you guys’ fantasies come true in January, but I’m not holding my breath.
I identify with Madman’s positions and frustration. And I’m goddamn sick and tired of being labeled with Limbaugh talking points as an extremist. I work my ass off. I pay my fucking taxes. I raise my children in a sound and socially mainstream environment. Just this little problem I have with being continually fucked by those who claim to represent me.
I don’t disagree with the frustration, I feel it too. I don’t have a high opinion of very many politicians either. As for Madman’s pox-on-both-their-houses argument, it ignores reality that is evident to any 4th-grader. The parties are not the same. I don’t like the Democrats much either, but they are a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.
Face it, the people who seek out political leadership positions are generally a pathetic lot regardless. We either work with the leaders we have, or spend energy recruiting better candidates. Bitching and moaning about how it should be in a perfect world that will never happen doesn’t accomplish anything.
I say this as someone who would probably be a communist except that communism doesn’t work on a large scale in the real world. Selfish liars rise to the top in any system. The more idealistic the government, the easier it is for narcissistic people to subvert.
But, at what point do things begin to change for the better? When democrats, who are slightly less bad as republicans get rewarded for their bad behavior? I don’t want two more years of republican rule anymore than anyone else does. But this is becoming like a bad addiction to abuse. And when was the last time the democrats were a real opposition party? I’m not asking for a perfect world. I’m demanding a little integrity and backbone for crying out loud. If the democrats can cave in over and over again when they have the cover of an opposition, what makes you think they’ll give a flying fuck what any of us think once they’re re-entrenched?
This all seems like a lot of wishful thinking to me. I hope I’m wrong.
When democrats, who are slightly less bad as republicans get rewarded for their bad behavior?
As far as me personally, I’m sick of trying to tear things down. Yes, the system is even more corrupt than normal, but it’s also collapsing from the weight of it’s own incompetence. From now on, I’m going to focus more of my time on complimenting politicians for their rare good behavior instead of constantly attacking selfish fools who could care less what I think.
Am I going to make much difference? No, because I have no interest in accumulating the wealth and power that matter most in our society. What we really need are effective new ways to build communities on a small scale before we will have any impact changing the world.
And third parties and independents are that small community that needs to be built before any real change can occur.
I mean small community literally, the 3000-person town, the 5000-person neighborhood, the 15000-person school district. The internet provides greater opportunity for interaction and coordination, but it also provides an easy distraction from focusing on local issues that actually affect our lives more directly.
What I’m saying is that my 20-30 hours a week won’t make much difference in national or even state politics without money behind it, but I could accomplish something locally if I focused there. Just thinking onscreen, basically.
As far as third parties and independents go, they don’t exist right now and I don’t see any point in wasting my time on something that unlikely. If other people want to spend their time helping to build a third party, I congragulate them. What I believe Madman is doing is tearing down Democrats so something better can rise in their place, which I see as naive rather than constructive.
As for me, if that alternative finally gets to the point of topping 10% in national polls, they have my support. Until then, we’re basically talking about a Nader-in-2000 situation and I’m not particularly happy about where that got us last time.
I knew what you were talking about. it just seemed an appropriate comparisn to what i was talking about.
So how do they meet your 10% requirement unless naive people like me and Madman bite the bullet and waste our votes for them? That’s the problem. Btw, I voted for Nader in 00 and also don’t like the results. But I don’t regret it. Not at all.
Pat, I’d like to buy a vowel! Sheesh, I couldn’t steal a 3rd grade spelling bee to save my miserable hide today! ;o)
Thanks for the conversation.
Interesting that in both houses, no Dem ranks below any Rep. Gotta admit, that goes against my perceptions, but on the face of it does seem to show that party matters a lot. Of course how “progressive” is defined and how the issues are weighted makes all the difference in the results. For me, for example, Lautenberg on the Senate side has no business being ranked 7 because he voted pro-torture. That blows away whatever he may have done on school prayer or ag subsidies or car insurance. The ranking also doesn’t take into account how likely the member is to blow in whatever wind comes along. It would be interesting to do some kind of scale based on how much courage it took to make certain votes because of the rep’s home district demographics.
Still that doesn’t invalidate the point. Most of the important chairmanships will not go to DINOs this time, to all appearances. I share some of Madman’s skepticism that the Dems will follow tradition in the face of terror about providing ammo to the GOP in 08. The prog side of the ledger might do well to make a triage list just in case: the committees and individuals who MUST get the job or else. For me that would include Obey, Miller, Dingell, Berman, Frank, Harman, Conyers, Slaughter, and Rangel. There might be negotiating room on some of the others, if necessary.
Why is Cynthia McKinney on this list?
I suspect the inclusion of McKinney and Kucinich is to give perspective on where Pelosi stands in the list.
She’s well known and widely considered to be on the far left of the party. It’s the same reason I listed the other three.
Thnaks for the reply. I guess that makes some sense. It’s just that she won’t be in congress, having been primaried out by a bi-partisan effort of Dem centrists and republicans, none of whom like uppity black women.
She’s considered to be on the ‘far left’ by the same folks who primaried her out. I’m sure they’ll all be happy with her far more tractable and socially conservative replacement.
I don’t know the details/analysis of the methodology you used, but, I don’t believe it, sorry.
YEARS ago, I lived in John Conyers district. On her best day, Nancy Pelosi can’t hold a candle to John Conyers!
they’re ranked 21 and 22, basically a tie.
Look at all those women and minorities and gays and otherwise cool people (Waxman!) I feel a little seedling of hope growing in the garden of my mind . . .
assuming the custom of seniority stands. especially because the house is a virtual partisan dictatorship compared to the senate.
do one of those for the senate dem leadership, booman, and the scenario is a lot less heartening, though.
According to Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post.