Democrats had two options last December: They could promote the young, rising star in their party — one of its most beloved figures, appealing to both the Bernie Sanders wing and anyone who just wants to see more fight from the opposition — into the role of investigating the Trump administration or they could give the job to an elderly man no one had ever heard of because that’s just the way things have always been done.
Monday’s announcement that Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., is “stepping back” from his role as the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee confirms what was apparent four months ago: Democrats made the wrong decision. Connolly, 75, had already been diagnosed with esophageal cancer when he laid claim to the position of ranking member on the panel, asserting his right to the position by way of his time spent in Congress. Dems believed his seniority trumped the 34-year-old Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and her claim to be the more gifted communicator.
“No one who sees me in action would doubt that I remain the bulldog that I am,” Connolly said at the time, about 135 days before announcing his retirement from public life. Connolly was undergoing treatment at the time for the cancer, his retirement announcement claimed, has “now returned.”
It is hard to fault Connolly for believing that he had what it took to serve at least another two years despite his serious health problems. Hubris is not unknown in the field of politics. Less forgivable is everyone else going along with it.
By a vote of 131-84, a supermajority of House Democrats chose to hand one of the most visible positions in Congress to someone who announced their retirement from public life four months later. They did this at the urging of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had announced her own retirement from Democratic leadership just two years earlier. Pelosi had also just led a last-minute campaign to get President Joe Biden to step out of the 2024 race after his own issues with health and aging became undeniable.
Democrats saw the problems that arose from the party indulging an old man’s ego and decided to do it again within the same calendar year. Some did it out of cowardice, believing that Trump winning a plurality of American voters meant the death of “wokeness,” or the sort of progressive values espoused without apology by the likes of Ocasio-Cortez. Others did it for the same reason that former Attorney General Merrick Garland declined to arrest Donald Trump on January 21, 2020: deference to "norms" and the way we do things here.
“Seniority isn’t a rule of the House, it is not a law, it’s not in the Constitution. It’s a norm and custom,” David Karol, who teaches political science at the University of Maryland, explained to Roll Call. Like the Senate filibuster, in other words, it’s a thing that members of Congress made up, at the expense of a truly representative democracy, that is now spun by its beneficiaries as a pillar of The Republic.
We need your help to stay independent
There are at least some indications that Democrats have learned the lesson this time. According to Axios, the fight over who should take Connolly’s job is seen by some members of Congress as an opportunity to hit “reset” and acknowledge that their party’s base wants to see a more aggressive approach to Trump. “Now, some lawmakers feel, is the time for House Democrats to show that they can adapt to those expectations,” the outlet reported, citing multiple lawmakers who had expressed an openness to a Millennial or even Gen Z member taking the lead on oversight.
Ocasio-Cortez is reportedly mulling her options, though she would need a special waiver to rejoin the Oversight Committee. She's joined by even younger Reps. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, and Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., both of whom have demonstrated a knack for grabbing media attention and reflecting the Democratic base’s anger in their public pronouncements. Also in the running is a 70-year-old moderate, Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., who is temporarily serving as the panel’s top Democrat in Connelly’s absence.
It’s rare that anyone gets a do-over so soon after an objective mistake. But Democrats, in Congress and out, have been given multiple, persuasive answers over the past year to the charge of “ageism” with respect to elderly lawmakers. In practice, people holding onto public office until the day they die denies opportunities to capable young adults and harms the party they serve. Seemingly not trusting anyone under 70 with power — and refusing to acknowledge the legitimate concerns about aging and inevitable decline— has been tried. It resulted in outcomes ranging from embarrassment to catastrophe.
This time? Democrats should forget their stifling, discredited norms, do the right thing for the country and just pick the most effective person for the job.
Shares