WASHINGTON (By Jonathan Hawley and Sahand Moarefy, Harvard Review) February 10, 2007 — In the 1994 midterm elections, Republicans dramatically took control of the House of Representatives. Upon assuming office, their new majority implemented an organizational structure that gave power not only to established congressional veterans, but also to the newly elected Republicans. Last November, the Democrats scored stunning victories in the House and Senate, resulting in a similarly large number of new legislators. Yet, though many new moderates are joining the 110th Congress, the organization of the Democratic caucus will not closely follow the example of the Republicans’ 1994 reforms, and will leave influence largely concentrated in the hands of traditional liberals.

The Freshmen

Many pundits have commented on the centrism of many of the new Democratic senators and congressmen. New Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, a Catholic, opposes abortion, in a departure from the traditional Democratic stance. Jon Tester of Montana supports tax cuts and raising the exemption on the estate tax. And Jim Webb of Virginia is a former Republican who worked in the Reagan Administration. In the House of Representatives, a number of these centrists come from traditionally conservative Indiana, where the Democrats elected three new members. The Indianapolis Star noted recently that among these three, Brad Ellsworth is a social conservative who opposes same-sex marriage and abortion and Baron Hill, who is returning to Capitol Hill after a narrow 2004 defeat, is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of fiscally conservative Democrats.

Congressional expert David King has an explanation for this apparent shift to the center, the most pronounced for the Democrats in at least a decade. “This new group of congressmen appears more moderate, and part of that is an outgrowth of the recruitment process,” King said in an interview with the HPR. “This election attracted a lot of businessmen and military veterans, who are by nature more moderate, because two years ago many Democrats didn’t think they’d take back the House. A lot of the state legislators and senators, who are the traditional candidates who receive party backing, sat this one out.”

The Seniors

Although there may be more centrist Democrats in Congress, their impact will likely be minimal—at least for now. As King commented, “The leadership sets the direction. And if left to their own devices, they remain to the left” on most issues. This is clearly true of the presumptive chairmen of the House’s most powerful committees. Henry Waxman of the Government Reform Committee, John Dingell of the Energy and Commerce Committee, John Conyers of the Judiciary Committee, and Barney Frank, who will chair the Committee on Financial Services, are all traditional liberal Democrats. Given their crucial committee assignments, these members will be the ones who will have the most influence in shaping the Democrats’ agenda. In the Senate, chairmen such as Carl Levin of Armed Services, Patrick Leahy of Judiciary, and Edward Kennedy of Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions are also traditional liberals.

Jim Flug, a Fellow at the Institute of Politics and former chief counsel to Kennedy, told the HPR that these legislators “feel and understand they have a responsibility to their constituencies.” Instead of a focus on the social issues that divide the new Democrats from the traditional liberals, Flug believes that the most attention will be given to more conventional issues such as immigration, health care reform, and especially oversight of the Bush Administration. Warned Flug: “They are not going to stand for an arrogant executive.”

Class Is In Session

In the short term, it does not seem as though the presence of additional moderate and conservative Democrats in the House and Senate will have a strong effect on Democratic ideology. Some shift towards the center can be expected, especially in the Senate, where a number of Democrats are eyeing the White House and may seek to adopt more moderate profiles. Indeed, the body as a whole might moderate itself in preparation for the next election cycle. But while the appearance of the Democratic Party has changed, it is still organized in a way that empowers old liberal lions to set the direction for the 110th Congress. The consequences might be significant. As Roger Porter, professor of government at Harvard, contends, “No one in Washington now is determined simply to produce gridlock. All would like to have some positive things to point to that they can assert with confidence are constructive and will benefit the country.”

2008