On Tuesday the Sunshine State News broke the story about proposed rules changes in the Democratic House Caucus that could lead to expulsion of members for voting against a caucus position. While this appears to be a good idea to create some degree of party discipline that has been lacking in recent sessions some of details that are emerging as to how this possible change would be implemented are worrying.
First off as, as someone who has followed the process for two decades and has studied extensively the history of the Florida Legislature in the 1970s and 1980s some sort of rule to enforce party unity is important. Historically, Democratic Party conformity and discipline even when the party had a large faction of conservative members from rural districts was never as poor as it is today. Many of those rural members broke when members from urban areas break with members from urban areas on issues related to guns, reproductive rights and school prayer. But on fundamental issues like Children’s Health Insurance, Budgetary matters and even in one or two sessions the Equal Rights Amendment got almost universal support among Democrats in the types of seats now held by Democrats. Recent session have shown us that never before have so many members from safe D seats that are in urban areas voted so regularly with the other side on issues of fundamental importance to progressives.
We have learned in the last 24 hours that implementation of these new rules would be largely arbitrary and give the House Democratic Leader unprecedented powers including that of expulsion of a caucus member elected by their constituents to the House as a Democrat.
The Democratic Leader (currently Perry Thurston of Fort Lauderdale, but in 2015 it will be Darryl Rouson of St Petersburg )will be given the sole authority to determine a caucus position on an issue if 2/3 of the caucus agrees to this position. The Democratic Leader would also have the sole authority to cancel a caucus position which is problematic in the event the Democrats are led again by someone like Rep. Ron Saunders who was to the right of the majority of his caucus on a number of issues. Only the Democratic Leader under this proposed rule change as we understand it would have authority to release a member from a caucus position.
My vision for this sort of rule is for someone who is in defiance regularly (at least 50% of the time) of established progressive positions to be held accountable and potentially be expelled. The idea of expelling members over one or two votes is not a good idea and also could lead to this rule being used to settle petty political scores.
A more mature and reasoned approach is needed. Democrats in Washington can teach us how to handle this situation. Take the 1980s example from the US House of Phil Gramm from College Station Texas. Gramm openly defied the Democratic Leadership for two years working closely with the Republican minority and the White House before finally being close to expulsion from the Democratic Caucus for a sole act of defiance against Speaker Tip O’Neill and Majority Leader Jim Wright during the budget deliberations in the House in the early 1980s. Gramm resigned his seat and was elected again in a Special Election as a Republican.
We have had several Democrats of note nationally like our longtime Majority/Minority Whip David Bonior ( The #2 House Democrat- held this position for the House Dems from 1991 to 2002 despite being anti-choice), former DNC Chair Howard Dean (DNC Chair from 2004 to 2008 despite being anti-gun control) and even several of our own Florida Democrats who voted against the Clinton Health Care and gun control proposals who could have been thrown out of the House Caucus under this rule.
It is important to bring discipline and order to a fractious caucus. Implementing rules encouraging party loyalty are important but the implementation of these tools must be judicious and not done to settle political scores. Are all potential House Democratic leaders in the near future responsible and mature enough to handle this type of responsibility? Honestly, I am just not convinced they are.
Bringing conformity to the House Democrats is important. A tool like this is needed to keep the Caucus in line but given some of the excess possible with the way we understand the rule is drafted it would be wise for House Democrats to make debate this honestly and make revisions to the proposal this weekend.
The Florida Squeeze 
Kartik, you are consistent in your views so I applaud you for that…however you are very wrong when you suggest that this cockamamie idea espoused by Rep. Jim Waldman is a “good” one…this is the most lucridous idea that I’ve ever heard of and I’ve been involved with the legislature for over three decades…and threatening to expell members especially when Dem’s are in the minority is simply suicidal…and if Dem’s want to stay permanently in the minority then this idea should be implemented immediately…
As usual you criticize Rep. Ron Saunders but he was the best House Caucus leader the Dem’s have had in the last 20 years…he limited the number of Caucus positions, he made things happen by working with the GOP leadership when it served the Caucus’ needs, and he gave his Caucus members freedom to vote their conscience or to represent the needs of their districts…
Dem’s are not going to win a majority in the House – or Senate for that matter – so long as Dem’s only seek and elect liberal/progressive candidates…that is what Dem’s have been doing in large part for many years and it has not brought Dem’s to the promised land of majority status…Dem’s must move to the center just as the GOP must to win statewide…but I digress…
As for how to operationalize the “purity” test is inconsequential…if you expel a Caucus member you are only hurting the Caucus…I understand that you and many others want a ideologically rigid Party and Caucus but that is as much folly as a GOP that is strictly Tea Party oriented…neither is going to be a solution for the future nor will it be successful…and the proof of my argument?…every Dem candidate moves to the “Center” after a primary victory just like GOP candidates do after their Primary win…the extremes – either right or left are just that…you are on the fringe…mind you, I’m not saying that you are wrong, simply that you are in the minority…you are not in the mainstream…nevertheless you are a consistent supporter of progressive ideals but this is not what the Dem Caucus is all about…it’s about representing the true diversity of the Democratic Party….
LikeLike
I always respect Barney’s point of view and the fact that he has the experience and knowledge to back up what he says. I disagree here but not entirely.
I agree Barney that after learning more about Waldman’s proposal that it is over the top and does not allow for potential difference of opinion based on region elected from (for example you cannot force legislators from rural areas to support gun control, although currently the Ds have zero rural legislators thus every current sitting member should support some reasonable restrictions on firearms) and is too arbitrary. I like the idea but it must be amended and made more reasonable. A tool to be used rarely if ever, not the wide ranging mechanism Waldman has proposed that could be exercised regularly. I do not want this becoming a way to settle political scores, which I suspect might just be the motivation of Rep. Waldman (I am a constituent of his so I feel I can say this.)
I do understand the governing class likes moderates in both parties. It gets things done for those whose lives revolve around Government and Governing. That is a legitimate class of professional people. But it is a group of people disconnected from the grassroots activists and everyday opinions/problems of people.
But what people want is big ideas and vision. I believe a contest between conservatives and liberals in the marketplace of ideas is what will move this country forward.
Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a Republican for a minute. Were I a Republican I would feel that the Florida Republicans have been wishy washy, not all that conservative when it comes down to it, increasing spending and the size/scope of government as well as previously indulging some unions on pensions and other matters (Remember Jeb’s pension deals with the Police and Firefighters Union? One conservative friend of mine was shocked when I told him about that and now won’t support Jeb going forward). George W. Bush was a true conservative on social issues but on economics and foreign policy mixed big spending, a reckless expansion of government agencies and a Wilsonian leftist/idealist foreign policy that has ultimately weakened the US in the way some of the Democratic proposals/attitudes did during the Cold War. Bush was more a William Jennings Bryan than a Warren Harding or William Howard Taft.
Republicans who are those who work hard to elect and keep that party in power have every right to be angry. Now see where we sit. We have seen Democrats make deals with Republicans constantly, compromising the very values that motivated grassroots Democrats to work hard, giving up all of our spare time after work, sacrificing our family lives etc to get these people elected and then they compromise our values and trust.
I do agree with you that the Democrats will not be a majority anytime soon. Despite district lines that are accessible this time around (Weatherford IMO drew a very generous, largely non-partisan map in the House; Senate a more partisan map though) the party does not have itself together enough to win more than 50 seats this decade.
A values based party that clearly differentiates what it means to be a Democrat is the only way forward. The same for Republicans. I am sure they are disgusted with the governing class of their party making deals and selling out on so many issues.
LikeLike
Couldn’t disagree more with Mr. Bishop. Voters don’t know what Democrats stand for because candidates (and members) have taken every position on every issue.
I recently heard someone on television make a statement that really resonated with me: “At some point, being a Democrat has to actually mean something.” We’ve reached that point.
LikeLike
I’m sure that the Republicans in the House have some sort of rule like this or they would not be, uniformly, refusing to deal with Medicaid expansion. Otherwise I am forced to conclude that they are ALL right wing nuts. I would like to believe they have brains, but can’t exercise them because of the rules. Who is Waldman after?
LikeLike
Worrying indeed.
LikeLike
The party is a joke including this. What is the point when they are pushing a Republican for their candidate as governor? Fools.
LikeLike
[…] questions than answers. However, in recent days the speaking snub has taken a back seat to some of possible fireworks coming this weekend courtesy of House members. The House caucus appears to be divided in a way […]
LikeLike