House Democratic leadership’s demand for party discipline collided this week with promises that the caucus has enough room for socialists and moderates, a harbinger of trouble next year if Democrats win the majority.
The intraparty feud flared on Tuesday when two centrists unexpectedly voted with Republicans to pass a procedural rule that would otherwise have failed. That teed up a floor vote on a symbolic resolution to denounce socialism. Furious liberals demanded the defectors be removed from their committees. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) and his two deputies responded in a joint statement that the “significant breach of trust … necessitates a serious response.” They referred the question to a party committee.
Democrats across the ideological spectrum see what happens next as a gauge of Jeffries’s strength and a precedent-setter for how leadership will deal with recalcitrance from the socialist whippersnappers poised to enter Congress in 2027.
Capitol Hill veterans privately acknowledge that Jeffries is not as talented a tactician as his predecessor, Nancy Pelosi, and it’s unclear whether he can grow into the job. The retiring former speaker told reporters this week that Democrats stuck together on procedural votes like this when she was in charge. That maximized Pelosi’s negotiating leverage. “We didn’t even consider that anybody would do that,” she said.
In contrast, the GOP has grown accustomed to rank-and-file members breaking with the conference on rule-related votes since the emergence of the House Freedom Caucus. In fact, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) needed support from Democratic Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Washington) and Jared Golden (Maine) because five Republicans opposed him on the same vote.
Democrats are now experiencing their own version of a tea party movement in the form of the Democratic Socialists of America, and the party establishment hopes that, unlike their GOP counterparts, they can channel and control the infusion of energy. Spoiler alert: It will be harder than they think.
Consider Darializa Avila Chevalier, the 32-year-old DSA member who defeated Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-New York), the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, in a June primary. Jeffries vigorously campaigned for Espaillat. Chevalier responded to Tuesday’s vote by castigating Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez. “Democrats love talking about a ‘big tent’, but then they vote in line with Republicans hell-bent on destroying our democracy and stripping Black and brown people of the right to vote,” Chevalier posted on Instagram.
It’s not just the newcomers. Rep. Jim McGovern (Massachusetts), the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, literally turned his back on Gluesenkamp Perez when she addressed the panel on Wednesday.
It’s wild that so many Democrats are treating moderates this way just two months before midterm elections, when the path to a majority goes through districts carried by President Donald Trump, such as the ones represented by Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden (who is not running for reelection). Jeffries understands this, which is probably why he sought to lower the temperature as the week went on. On Thursday, he said he met with Gluesenkamp Perez for a “productive, forward-looking conversation” that is part of an ongoing “family discussion” among Democrats.
Gluesenkamp Perez has a coveted seat on the Appropriations Committee. Assuming she gets nothing more than a slap on the wrist, the risk for Jeffries is that DSA acolytes will feel emboldened to break with him on key votes next year. If Jeffries holds them to a different standard in retaliation, he will generate new problems on his left flank, including a potential primary challenge in 2028. Assuming Jeffries is likely to become speaker, much depends on how many votes he has to spare.
Trump’s unpopularity may keep Democrats mostly unified in opposition, but the family discussion, already heated, could be headed for an all-out food fight.
The post Family counselors, please check on House Democrats appeared first on Washington Post.
