In the midterm election of 2006, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), a branch of the Democratic National Committee, was able to elect 42 new congressmen in a successful effort to take control of the House of Representatives. Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who was chairman of the DCCC, used a novel approach in selecting his congressional candidates. In an attempt to end a twelve-year Republican majority in the House, he selected conservative-minded candidates over candidates who would justly represent the ideals of the party. His strategy will have an immediate effect on issues vital to the party and potentially a long-term affect on future leadership of the Democratic Party. Although his strategy was effective, was it really necessary for winning back the House?
The vast majority of Democrats care tremendously about social issues such as stem cell research, gay marriage, and abortion rights—they support all three. Many freshman congressmen have staunch views contrary to these cornerstone beliefs of the party. For this reason, the congressional majority that they technically have will fall apart once controversial issues arise. There is no point in having a “paper” majority if it restricts true Democrats from passing legislation that they believe in. Congressman Emanuel’s introduction of this conservative coalition appears to be a success, but in the long run it will hurt Democrats and divide the party. Liberal groups such as MoveOn.org have already spoken out against many of these congressmen and proposed that left wing candidates challenge them in a primary. But this would reverse Emanuel’s plan altogether and leave Democrats in a worse predicament then when they started. Another scenario involves congressman like Heath Shuler, who has a mainly conservative constituency. To whom will he remain loyal—the people who elected him, or the Democratic Party? Even worse, if they do stay within the party this new crop of conservative congressman could climb the congressional ladder and implement their own beliefs while alienating the liberal base of the party. This kind of threat is a stretch, but it’s a threat that could have been avoided.
In the months leading up to the 2006 Midterms, the president and the war in Iraq were polling at an all time low. And with only 20% of Americans thinking we were winning in Iraq, the country was ready for some new leadership. The precautions Rahm Emanuel took in choosing conservative Democrats were costly and unnecessary. What with the huge failures of the war and a faltering second term president, in most cases almost any candidate on the Democratic ticket could have one. Thus instead of having a solid congressional majority with similar ideologies throughout the party, Democrats now have a loosely knit majority packed with social conservatives. Emanuel must have thought that he was choosing the lesser of two evils, but he ended up selecting the greater.
These divisions within the House Democrats will leave the swing votes with these congressmen: testing their loyalties when everything is on the line. I believe that a congressional majority is necessary for passing effective legislation, and that Emanuel was right in making it a serious priority, but his lack of foresight in gauging the demand for a Democratic congress diminishes his accomplishment and the effectiveness of this new Democratic majority. I would rather run real Democrats and lose then have these fake ones and win.
