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.
