In the last Congress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic House majority didn’t allow two rather noxious Republicans to serve on any Congressional committees. Since committees do most of the House’s work – floor deliberation is all but extinct – those Congressmen’s districts were effectively deprived of most of the benefit of representation. In addition, the Speaker refused to allow the minority party to designate its members of the special committee formed to investigate the January 6th Capitol Hill riot. Instead, she hand picked two Republicans whose views were well known to align with her own.
It was predictable, and predicted, that a Republican majority would apply lex talionis. The situation was much like the early stages of a limited war: One side has attacked. The other must either do nothing, in this case accepting the principle that Democrats can dictate Republicans’ committee assignments, or retaliate. Retaliation, however, carries the risk of a cycle of escalation that could in the end destroy the committee system altogether. What is needed is a proportionate response that will, one may hope, lead to a return to the status quo ante, that is, a reaffirmation of the right of each party to control which of its members serve on which committees, or, at worst, the setting a new rule that the majority party may blackball a tiny number of the minority’s committee choices.
Speaker McCarthy could have chosen to escalate. Noxious Democrats abound. Instead, he has chosen a very limited response, one, indeed, that less severe than the original aggression and therefore de-escalatory. Three Democrats will be barred not from all committees but only from a couple of plum assignments: Rep. Adam Schiff (D–Cal.) and Rep. Eric Swalwell (D–Cal.) will lose their positions on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–Minn.) hers on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
There are strong reasons beyond “vengeance” (which is, of course, the Democrats’ characterization) for targeting these particular Congressmen. Rep. Schiff long claimed that he had, thanks to his position on the Intelligence Committee, seen “more than circumstantial evidence” of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign. We now know that he was lying.
Rep. Swalwell had an affair with a Communist Chinese spy, a fact that suggests a certain lack of the judgment and character that ought to be a prerequisite to access to classified intelligence data.
Rep. Omar is a notorious expositor of Jew-hatred, has been very plausibly accused of participation in immigration fraud and has much else in her background that is dubious. For an extensive summary, see the 13-part series “From the Mixed-Up Files of Rep. Ilhan Omar”. (The link goes to the first installment. For the rest, search for “Omar files” on the PowerLine web site.)
All in all, these characters are at least as objectionable as the Republicans whom Nancy Pelosi punished in the 117th Congress, but, it is important to note, Speaker McCarthy is treating them more moderately. They will be allowed to sit on other committees of the Democrats’ choice. Most likely, they will be of greater service to their constituents in roles that give less room for ideologically driven grandstanding.
The ideal result of proportionate response would be a return to the House’s historical practice. No matter how low an opinion one may have of Marjorie Taylor Greene or Adam Schiff, they were chosen by the citizens of their districts, who have the right to a representative of their choice rather than ours.
There is some possibility of a peaceful resolution. As I write this, the Democrats haven’t named their Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committee members. They could give Reps. Schiff and Swalwell positions on other high-profile panels. (The speaker has stated that he won’t block non-Intelligence assignments for either man.) Rep. Omar’s case very closely resembles Rep. Greene’s. The main pretext for keeping the latter off of all committees was her antisemitism. To do nothing about Rep. Omar would be retreat rather than de-escalation. By giving her some other, lesser but substantial assignment, the Democrats would acknowledge that the Greene precedent was misguided without losing face.
This skirmish doesn’t have to escalate into total war. If it doesn’t, that will be a hopeful sign for our country.
Comments