Democrats Are Overdue for New Leadership

As the Democratic Party begins the long process of recovering from the 2024 election debacle, the list of prescriptions for rethinking the party’s core governing program and messaging mix is ​​growing longer and longer. But there is one short-term pressure point in this battle that is showing some encouraging signs of change: struggle for leadership positions as part of the regular 119th Congress.

Power struggles in Congress are not ideological showdowns, especially when the party continues its minority tour. But as the next session of the House of Representatives prepares to begin next month, some important generational and political changes are already taking place. Jamie Raskin, 61, of Maryland, succeeded Jerry Nadler, 77, as the top member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Raskin’s departure as the top member of the House oversight panel created another key leadership vacancy after he jumped the seniority system. to become a ranking member. Thirty-five-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes is hoping to fill Raskin’s seat in the comptroller’s office by challenging 74-year-old Jerry Connelly, a nine-term Virginia lawmaker who is battling esophageal cancer. Other House committees, such as Agriculture and Natural Resources, are also poised to see younger members move into ranking positions, ahead of leaders with traditional claims to the chairmanship.

This youth movement is not a push to wrest control of the party from the elder statesmen types, but it is a salutary recognition of the need to fundamentally rethink the party. The Conference of the House of Representatives of the Republican Party limits the terms of authority of committee heads; they serve for three sessions, with the party’s governing and policy group disallowing a fourth term. It’s true that this system has created a lot of volatility for GOP initiatives in Congress, although the broader challenges to party leadership appear to be ideological rather than structural, with hard-line anti-government groups like the Freedom Caucus exercising de facto veto power on the agenda of the Republican Party congress.

The Democrats, on the other hand, firmly adhered to seniority as a key element of power in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as in all branches of government. While longtime House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi faced challenges to her tenure during Trump’s first term, Democrats saw Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and President Joe Biden reach for power well past their optimal performance in office, leading to catastrophic consequences. Against this backdrop, the current exodus in the Congress leadership is a welcome departure from form for a party that is steadily ossifying into a gerontocracy.

“Democrats have about the best numbers they could hope for as the minority party in the House,” says Matthew Green, a political science professor at Catholic University and a former Democratic congressional staffer. “They have the ability, if they act as a team, to make things very difficult for Donald Trump and his agenda. But it’s not just about numbers. It’s about who these people in leadership are—what they represent and what they look like to voters, and the strategies and tactics they follow.”

In this regard, Ruskin and Acasio-Cortez are particularly bright harbingers of change. Raskin used his oversight position to take a leadership role on the House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, an investigative body that Trump has threatened with criminal prosecution. Acasio-Cortez has already sparked speculation as a possible presidential candidate in 2028. It’s also worth remembering that her surprise win in the 2018 primary was another blow to the Democratic seniority system, as she defeated incumbent New York Rep. Joseph Crowleywhom Pelosi was grooming as her successor as party leader.

There’s another broader political lesson to heed for future leadership transitions: The modern Republican Party was also spinning its wheels thanks to its long-term minority status on the Hill until new House Leader Newt Gingrich brought it back to relevance in the early 1990s. Gingrich used his seat on the House Ethics Committee to target then-Speaker Jim Wright, a Democrat, over allegations of book marketing and real estate dealings; after the allegations prompted Wright’s resignation, Gingrich was promoted to minority whip. His partisan campaign to oust Wright served as the model for the 1994 Contract with America, which propelled the party to its second majority in more than half a century. Gingrich’s ideological takeover also served as a template for subsequent Tea Party and MAGA insurgents on the right, while sanctioning a model of congressional governance that, unlike the Democratic opposition, often ousts party leaders the moment they fall from ideological grace.

Green, author of a study of Gingrich’s career as a party broker, notes that the former speaker’s rise occurred in a political environment not far removed from today’s heavily partisan Congress. “When Gingrich was first in the House, in the ’70s and ’80s, it was becoming more partisan, but it was still strongly bipartisan,” he says. “There was an ethos that you don’t attack colleagues on the campaign trail, you don’t use speeches from the podium as a means of attracting attention. Gingrich described his plan, and I think accurately, as an effort to change the culture of the party, if not the House, from “Well, we’re all working together on appropriations to get a solution through compromise.” At the end of the day, we’re in the minority.” Yes, you want to win, but what are you going to do? Gingrich’s response was, “No, we are the opposition. We fight for membership in commissions, we fight for everything.”

Raskin and Acasio-Cortez are unlikely to be the bomb-throwing arbiter of power that Gingrich was, and that’s a good thing. Gingrich’s hype-fueled Republican revolution soon ran into bitter internal divisions within the Republican Party conference, as well as Gingrich’s own ethical lapses; within four years he was also forced to leave his post as speaker. But they can still be effective and innovative prophets of party renewal — even in the realm of media appeals. Green notes that the couple has received widespread social media attention because of the post live video on Instagram mocking then-GOP leader Kevin McCarthy’s eight-hour speech to Congress to block passage of a climate bill. “It underscores how familiar and comfortable these new incoming ranking members and likely future committee chairs are with new media messaging,” Green says. “It may sound superficial and unsympathetic, but it’s strategic if you want to attract a new audience.”

To be sure, new message-wielding leaders in Congress won’t be able to instantly solve Democrats’ long-term electoral problems any more than the party’s self-aggrandizing consulting class will. But a more nimble and aggressive House leadership corps can at least focus more attention on a cohesive agenda for the next Congress ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, and a solid Democratic majority in the 119th Congress is a necessary first step toward restoring policy relevance. We can only hope that the broader movement-friendly logic behind this early committee maneuvering will carry over to next month’s vote on a new Democratic National Committee chair — another key moment in Democrats’ attempts to rebuild the party from the ground up.