How will House Democrats approach their mission the next two years?

Eric Levitz has a report on what looks like a trial baloon in For First Act in Power, Democrats Consider Making Their Own Agenda Impossible to Pass New York 11/16/2018:

The rule, proposed by Pelosi and Massachusetts representative Richard Neal, would “require a three-fifths supermajority to raise individual income taxes on the lowest-earning 80 percent of taxpayers.”

This proposal is, in effect, a progressive revision of an existing House rule: Under Paul Ryan’s leadership, the current Republican majority established a supermajority requirement to raise income taxes on anyone. Thus, Pelosi’s decision to retain the supermajority threshold on tax hikes – but restrict it to the bottom 80 percent – might look commendable on first glance.

This just doesn't make any sense. Nobody outside the Beltway Village is going to see this as a "progressive" measure. That's just silly.

The supermajority requirement for tax increases is mainly a Republican stunt, albeit one with some teeth. If one House decides they will make such a rule, they can do it by majority vote. And they can aboloish it by majority vote. But a two-thirds requirement does prevent the minority from enacting a measure by peeling off a few votes from the majority to get 50%.

If the Republicans had just won a House majority of the Democrats, they wouldn't have hestitated to toss out the rule they didn't like. They know that a procedural change in the House is not going to register in most voters' minds as a significant measure.

But it is a signal to partisans. Abolishing the rule and going back to a majority vote, which the Republicans would surely have done, sends the base the message, "We're here and we're ready to fight for the things we campaigned for."

The Democratic trial balloon, though, says to Democratic voters, "We're here and we're ready to surrender to Republicans without a fight."

I'm being generous in calling it a trial balloon. It's part of a set of proposals that Pelosi released (Levitz) and the Washington Post has published, Democratic House Rules Proposal: Summary of proposed changes to the House Rules for the 116th Congress, presented Nov. 15, 2018, although it is marked DRAFT.

Admittedly, these are framed a parliamentary rules proposal, which is bound to be dull. But it's actually a mixed bag, which includes some policy goals, including, "First and foremost we must send to the floor early in the new Congress H.R.1, The Government by the People Act, in order to restore the Voting Rights Act and counter the influence of big money in politics." (emphasis in original) That's the first one listed (p. 5), and it's a great goal. But will the House Democrats pass this and forced the Republican Senate to reject it again and again? Just writing it a dull procedural document has no political effect.

That same pages includes five other proposals, a second of which also deals with voting rights:

Change the rules to give voting rights to Delegates and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico in the Whole. They represent over 4.5 million American citizens who deserve representation in the House. Ensure Delegates and the Resident Commissioner can be appointed to Joint Committees. (emphasis in original)

This is obviously a gesture to Puerto Ricans' representational rights. But anyone not particulary familiar with the House rules is unlikely to be able to tell what that even means.

But the document is really just an all-too-typical Democratic laundry list that isn't focused on any discernable central theme.

The following is bad news for the Democrats not matter how you slice it. Levitz:

All this would be a bit less problematic if the Democratic Party had overcome its allergy to deficit spending (and/or accepted Modern Monetary Theory as its personal truth). But it hasn’t: In addition to forbidding tax increases on the bottom 80 percent, Pelosi has vowed to honor the “pay as you go” rule, which requires the House to fully finance any and all new government spending. (my emphasis)

The draft document includes this bullet point (p. 11): "Replace the Republicans’ sham budgetary process of CUTGO — which pretends tax cuts pay for themselves — with a reasonable rule in light of Statutory PAYGO." (emphasis in original)

This document conveys a marking-time approach to the next two years. That is not the approach that will reverse the anti-democratic trend represented by Trumpism.

On the other hand, politics is politics. And even Nancy Pelosi can be pushed into recognizing that the times, they are a'changin': Anthony Adragna et al, Ocasio-Cortez gets in closed-door fight with veteran lawmaker over climate change Politico 11/15/2018. Norman Solomon sensibly observes (The ‘Pelosi Problem’ Runs Deep Truthdig 11/15/2018):

Such well-planned actions as Tuesday’s “Green New Deal” sit-in at Pelosi’s Capitol office serve many valuable purposes. (Along the way, they help undermine the absurd right-wing Fox News trope that portrays her as some kind of leftist.) Insistently advocating for strong progressive programs and calling Pelosi out on her actual positions despite nice-sounding rhetoric can effectively widen the range of public debate. Over time, the process creates more space and momentum for a resurgent left.

And he concludes:

This year, many progressive individuals and organizations have moved beyond the false choice of either building movements or seriously trying to win elections. We can and must do both—simultaneously, not sequentially—to the benefit of both parallel tasks. The Republican Party’s loss of the House was largely due to decisions by substantial numbers of people on the left to engage with the electoral process as never before. Moving forward, we need to strengthen social movements, as well as electoral capacities, so we can end Republican rule and replace it with genuinely progressive governance.