Dingell vs. Waxman

A heavyweight battle has begun on Capitol Hill between two of the most senior and most powerful Democratic figures in Congress. In one corner stands the challenger, Congressman Henry Waxman of Beverly Hills. First elected in 1974, Waxman is a feared power-player, and in his capacity as chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee he has been the fiercest critic of the Bush administration over the last several years.

In the other corner stands the sitting champ, Michigan Congressman John Dingell, the dean of the House of Representatives. First elected to Congress to take his father's seat in 1955, Dingell currently occupies the position Waxman is now seeking -- chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee -- and he has headed the committee on and off for over 15 years.

This fight has been anticipated for some time, but it only came to the surface in a big way when Waxman publicly announced last week just after the election that he would try to wrest the Energy and Commerce gavel from Dingell. There are multiple reasons for Waxman's challenge, some pragmatic and others more complex. First, Waxman's current committee, Oversight, will be less prominent come 2009. This is simply because with a Democrat in the White House, congressional Democrats will have much less interest or impetus to oversee invasive investigations into Obama's administration in much the same way that the GOP-controlled Oversight Committee sat on its hands between 2001 and 2006. Also, Waxman has been number two in seniority on the body for years, and Waxman has waited paitently (and at times, not so patiently) for the old bull Dingell to retire.

With Obama in power, issues like climate change, environmental protection, health care, fuel efficiency, emissions and many others take on greater emergence, and all of these issues fall under the broad purview of the powerful Energy and Commce Committee. An old midwestern moderate, Dingell has come under fire from liberals and has drawn the ire of Democratic leadership for not taking on greater leadership of those issues mentioned above. Specifically, Dingell's closeness with the Michigan auto industry (for whom his wife is one its chief lobbyists) has hampered him from pushing for stronger regulations. Many liberals who want Obama and Congress to strike while the iron is hot and push through sweeping new legislation fear it could be held up by Dingell.

There are also nakedly political considerations involved in this fight. Dingell and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are not the best of friends. In 2002, then the GOP-controlled Michigan legislature put Dingell into the same district as another Democratic congressional incumbent, Pelosi backed Dingell's opponent in the contentious primary. While Dingell survived, bad blood never disappears from something like that, and there is no great warmth between the Speaker and the chairman. With that in mind, I find it impossible to believe that Waxman did not get at least get some tacit support for his challenge from Pelosi. Waxman is a California liberal and while he is not as close to Pelosi as someone like Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (also of California), he is much closer to her than the House Dean. While Waxman has always been ambitious and a go-getter, he is also very smart, and he would not have jumped into this fight -- with a newly minted Democratic President and an expanded majority on the way -- without seeing if he had the votes. Frankly, I think Waxman will end up winning the gavel.

This challenge, while an earthquake within the Beltway, should not have taken anyone by great surprise: it is well within Waxman's nature and his past history. We need to go back to 1978 to see what I am talking about. Back then, Waxman, at the time a junior member, coveted the chairmanship of the powerful Health Subcommittee (also of Energy and Commerce). However, the gavel was set to go Congressman Richardson Preyer of North Carolina, who had more seniority than Waxman. In a move that was unprecedented at that time, Waxman lobbied heavily for the post, and his PAC donated big money to fellow committee members who ultimately awarded Waxman the post. At the time, the move created shockwaves in Washington. Clearly, Waxman has had his eye on the big prizes in politics for a long time.

Unlike the 1978 fight, which involved a subcommittee chairmanship being determined by the membership of that body, a full committee gavel is determined by the entire caucus. The Democratic Steering and Policy Committee will weigh in with an important recommendation, but the final vote will come to the entire party caucus. Both men have assembled whip teams of trusted colleagues who will serve as lieutenants in rounding up support. I am sure both Dingell and Waxman have been burning up the phone lines in reaching out to members who are now scattered across the country before the decisive Democratic caucus meetings taking place next week.

Already, moderate Democrats, particularly members of the Blue Dog and New Democrat caucuses have rallied around Dingell. Many of these members have argued that replacing the moderate Dingell with the liberal Waxman would be bad for the party and it would push it too far to the left with the Democrats just having won further key gains. I have also read that some believe that installing Waxman in the powerful post would make the party look too liberal nationally.

Briefly, let's look at both contentions. First, I think that the contention that House Democrats need prominent moderates in their ranks is absolutely right. I am as strong a believer as anyone of staying close to the center. Moving to far to the margins is what cost the GOP, and Democrats must realize that it cannot keep winning and sustaining members like Bobby Bright and Travis Childers without moderation. However, there are already moderates in powerful posts like Ike Skelton who chairs Armed Services, John Spratt who chairs Budget, and Collin Peterson who chairs Agriculture. Granted, none of these committees are as powerful as Energy and Commerce, but they are nonetheless important bodies of Congress.

As to the second point, I think it is plainly silly for the simple reason that no one in the general public knows or cares about congressional committee chairmen. They might be some of the most powerful figures in the government, but they are completely unknown outside of the Washington Beltway. Even if Waxman pushes very liberal legislation through his committee -- and assuredly, he will -- the buck will not stop with him, it will stop with Obama. The President is the one who assumes responsibility for the direction of important national policy as he is the face of the government. Henry Waxman may be on CSPAN a lot, but he is not a nationally-known leader.

To understand what I am getting at, quick: name for me the very conservative chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee for the Republicans before the Democrats and Dingell took back the committee in 2006. Answer? Answer? That's my point. The last chair (Joe Barton of Texas) pushed through some incredibly broad and important legislation through E and C when Tom DeLay ruled, yet no one can name him. The same will apply to Henry Waxman should he chair the body in 2009. He was all over tv while he chaired Oversight, but I bet you a Coke that a minority of his own district could tell that he chaired a committee.

Finally, let me state that this is not a battle that should be framed by the media or any observers itching for a juicy storyline as a fight between young and old, Washington Establishment against New Guard. If you hear that, it is absolute nonsense. Dingell is the fourth longest serving member of Congress ever, but Waxman was elected in the Watergate Class. Both are longtime DC figures. It just so happens that one is an Old Bull and the other is a Very Old Bull.

As I said at the top, I think Waxman prevails here. I do not think he would have gotten in without knowledge that he had a great shot. The Democratic caucus is certainly stocked with moderates, but it is still a predominantly liberal group, and the leadership is almost all liberal and will also be backing Waxman (though perhaps not loudly to the public). Waxman may be over 70 years old, but Dingell is over 80 and has not been in great health. Having seen him in person recently, he is very frail these days, and I imagine this challenge has taken a heavy toll on him. The Energy and Commerce Committee is his baby, and he has helped control it for decades. Without the gavel, I wonder what other purpose he could have in Congress after 53 years. I think Waxman is hungrier, smarter, and will win.

One other thing. Unless you a real deep insider, trying to count votes for a contest like this from the outside is pointless. Simply assuming that a moderate member will back Dingell and a liberal will back Waxman is not necessarily true. Many factors come in to play for votes like these, and many individual members who have longtime relationships (or grudges) against either Dingell or Waxman will vote based on them more than anything. Surely, homestate members or members on the combatants' current committees have vested interests to back one over the other, but my whole point is that predicting how individuals will vote can be very tough. Sometimes the smallest grudge or petty insult exchanged between members can fester for years; indeed, this is likely what cost the caustic Rep. Phil Burton, when he lost the Dem majority leader post by one vote after many longtime enemies cast ballots against him for no other reason than they disliked him personally.