Everybody’s complaining about how the Democrats have no leader, but no one as far as I can see is examining the actual institutional reason why this is the case. Basically, it’s because we don’t have a parliamentary system in the United States. In a parliamentary system—the U.K. being the most obvious example—the out-of-power party elects a leader, and that person is acknowledged to be the one who is the main face of the party and who will “stand” for prime minister in the next election.
Over here, the House and Senate caucuses elect their leaders, but according to very different criteria from the election of a party leader. House and Senate leaders are chosen by their peers for a set of really specific qualifications: They need to be good at counting noses, corralling votes, and getting stuff passed. That is, they’re elected largely because of skills that come into play when the party has the majority, because that’s when they’re important. And whether they’re in power or out of power, these skills are all inwardly focused—the people who get elevated are perceived as being good at running things behind the scenes.
That doesn’t necessarily make them the best outwardly focused, face-of-the-party types. But they’re not elected to their positions because their colleagues think they’ll be great opposition leaders. And no one thinks of minority-party legislative leaders as a kind of shadow president. Chuck Schumer was never considered presidential timber, and I doubt Hakeem Jeffries ever will be. Newt Gingrich came as close as any to being effective at both jobs, at least for a while, but his legislative flame-out was operatic, and he never got near the presidency.
Suffice it to say, these jobs just don’t lend themselves to developing that presidential aura. History-trivia question, which will be answered at the bottom of this column: In U.S. history, have any legislative leaders of either the House or Senate become president by being elected to the office?
So, expecting Schumer and Jeffries to be inspiring opposition leaders is like expecting Dick Vitale to be unemotional. It’s just not in their DNA. Now Bernie Sanders—opposition is his DNA. He (and AOC) are out doing exactly what they should be doing—firing up crowds. A few legislators have broken through to some extent: Chris Murphy, Jasmine Crockett, some others. Tim Walz is showing some moxie. And there’s always Jamie Raskin. In the gubernatorial ranks, only Illinois’s JB Pritzker has stepped out so far.
So, no—the Democrats don’t have a leader. And that’s fine and normal. Someone will emerge. But in the meantime, here’s an idea.
In parliamentary systems, the leader of the out-of-power party appoints a shadow Cabinet: A shadow chancellor of the exchequer, shadow home secretary, shadow secretary of state for work and pensions, and so on.
Why don’t the Democrats do that? Schumer and Jeffries should go ahead and appoint a shadow Cabinet: a shadow treasury secretary, a shadow secretary of state, a shadow secretary of homeland security, a shadow head of Veteran’s Affairs, a shadow Social Security Administration head, a shadow Environmental Protection Agency head, and so on. These people would be charged with running point on arguing the opposition case on each of these fronts. When the Trump administration does something outrageous on immigration, say, the shadow DHS secretary holds a press conference and delivers the Democratic critique.
And these positions don’t have to be limited to reactive press conferences. They should be funded and staffed with people who know how to look through the Federal Register and other obscure publications and figure out the things the administration is up to that aren’t in the headlines. They could serve a useful transparency and accountability function that today is done only haphazardly. And of course they’d need to hire people who are good at social media and who can explain things in an accessible and entertaining way.
And I don’t want to give short shrift to that word, “entertaining.” Democrats are struggling to break through in the current media landscape, which disfavors the staid approaches of the past in favor of what amounts to a content creation war. Empaneling a murderers’ row of lively experts to throw sharp elbows and take full advantage of the current information landscape’s preference for constant debate and rhetorical combat will do far more to help the Democratic message break through than sending Schumer or Jeffries out to do the Full Ginsburg on the Sunday morning talk shows.
If they did it right, this would be a really dramatic step. It has no precedent in American politics, at least that I know of. It would signal to their base that Democrats get the gravity of this moment—which is all the more important after the recent Schumer debacle—and they’re trying to respond with something big. Donald Trump is doing a lot of things that have never been done. Democrats should answer him by doing the same. At this moment in our nation’s history, the richer political payoffs come from being unconventional.
This won’t be easily accomplished. Egos are involved. Lots of people would probably want to be the shadow secretary of state. Shadow interior secretary, not so much; although someone surely will want it, someone who cares about leases on public lands and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which the Trump administration is cutting to the bone.
So, yes—some people will be disgruntled, while others will be highly gruntled. So what? That’s life. Democracy is being ripped to shreds on a daily—hourly—basis. If these people are going to let their egos get in the way of doing something big about that, shame on them.
As I write, I’m sitting here watching UConn play Florida. Everybody can’t be the leading scorer. Some people rebound. Some people are sent in just to commit fouls. And you know what? They do what they’re told because they’re part of a team and because they want to win. And 250 years of democracy isn’t even at stake.
I’m not going to suggest people. Not my job. That’s Schumer’s and Jeffries’s job. But they should do this. Show some opposition-time leadership. To soften the ego blows, I suppose these positions could be rotated. But leading means pissing someone off sometimes.
OK, now, the answer to our question. In all of American history, only one legislative leader has been elected president: James K. Polk. He was speaker of the House from 1835 to 1839, then became governor of Tennessee before being elected president in 1844. And that’s it. Lyndon Johnson and Gerry Ford, you say? Yes, they were legislative leaders who became president. But not by election. By assassination (Kennedy) and resignation (Nixon). LBJ tried to run in 1960 as Senate majority leader. The only delegates he won were from his home state.
That should tell us something. Legislative leaders just aren’t going to be great opposition leaders. But Schumer and Jeffries can do something bold and original that would give a number of legislators a chance to show the country whether they have the juice to provide the kind of leadership we need right now. If not this, they need to think of something. This is not the time to be playing it safe.
