Yes: House Democrats don’t need a stronger progressive

The modern speaker of the House is not solely the ideological leader of the majority party; nor is he or she simply a presiding officer guiding floor proceedings.

Rather, the position requires leadership in and across the institutional, legislative, and electoral arenas. Nancy Pelosi remains the Democrat best suited to fulfill that role.

First, the speaker leads the House of Representatives as an institution within a system of separated powers.

Nancy Pelosi has 30 years of House experience, including service on the powerful appropriations and intelligence committees and as whip to her predecessor as leader, Dick Gephardt.

Her time in Congress has spanned six presidents and all manner of unified and divided government. Pelosi has the institutional knowledge and experience that a challenger would almost certainly lack, along with an appreciation of the sharing of power that defines our fragmented national government.

This is especially vital in a House that must work with and be a check against a president who has little regard for history and norms.

Second, the speaker possesses the responsibility of shepherding important bills through Congress and into law. Pelosi is widely lauded as a proficient legislative tactician and wrangler of votes.

In her first term as speaker, with Republican President George W. Bush from 2007 to 2009, Congress passed significant lobbying reform, a major farm and energy bill, and several measures to address the financial crisis.

In the first two years of the Obama presidency, Pelosi played a significant role in getting the president’s signature legislative achievements over the finish line, including the Affordable Care Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the 2009 fiscal stimulus, DoddFrank, and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

Many of Pelosi’s progressive challengers cite the issues addressed by these bills as cornerstones of their new agenda, yet Pelosi herself achieved tangible results.

Third, modern speakers have taken the lead in helping their parties win and maintain majorities. While detractors may point to the Democrats’ eight-year stretch in the minority, Pelosi did preside over the party’s initial return to power in 2006, before Barack Obama became the face of the party.

In her time as party leader, Pelosi has excelled as a fundraiser, raking in millions in campaign contributions, without which many of her would-be challengers would have never made it to Washington.

The Nov. 6 elections also made it apparent that the progressive wing of the party may not be the key to majority status in the House.

While outspoken progressives grabbed the headlines, the Democrats owe much of their actual seat gain to moderate victories in purple suburbs.

Achieving and maintaining the House majority requires party leadership that is willing to forego ideological litmus tests and provide some latitude to moderate members, as Pelosi did with the redstate Democrats who rode Obama’s coattails to Washington in 2008.

A “big tent” may not excite liberals who want to see significant change, but that approach is often necessary for a congressional party seeking majority status.

Thus, Nancy Pelosi’s experience and savvy make her the right choice for speaker in 2018, and such a pick would not preclude the possibility of fresh Democratic leadership in the future.

As Pelosi herself has indicated, she can navigate the troublesome waters of divided government now, while the party grooms a new class of leaders.

As of this writing, those members who expressed a willingness to vote against Pelosi as speaker have not backed an actual challenger. The 2020 elections have the potential to deliver Democrats unified government and the opportunity to enact a more progressive agenda, but the party does not yet live in such a world.