The punditsphere is abuzz with speculation over what will happen in the 110th Congress next year, when and if Democrats take over one or both houses. Among liberals and progressives, it is an article of faith that winning on Nov. 7 is The Only Thing That Matters, and that the sea change likely in next week's election will by definition make everything better.

At the macro level, where headlines are made, this is beyond wishful thinking. There is absolutely nothing in the last six years of Democrats' performance as a minority party to suggest that once in control of one or both houses, the Democratic Party leadership will provide much of a useful counterweight, let alone impediment, to the inevitable Bush administration excesses of incompetence, corruption, lies, and Constitution-shredding. From Enron and tax cuts to the PATRIOT Act (twice), Iraq, NSA wiretapping, torture and secret prisons (and the abolition of habeas corpus), Medicare, Katrina relief, Supreme Court and lesser appointments, and far more, congressional Democrats have been damned near useless for six long years.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the prospective leaders of the Senate and House, are centrists who attained their positions by mastering the game of corporate fundraising. And most of the Senate hopefuls for the 2008 presidential race, starting with frontrunner Hillary Clinton and current media darling Barack Obama, and adding Biden, Bayh, and to a lesser extent Kerry, are legislative centrists. For all of them, not offending potential donors (and, oh yeah, voters) will be the bottom line for the next two years. And they'll need even more corporate cash than usual. Don't look for a whole lot of confrontation with, let alone impeachment of, the Executive Branch from those folks. Democrats are doing well this year as a result of public hostility to Republican rule and to Congress, not because of anything the Dems have stood for. In terms of public perceptions, that's not likely to much change in the next two years.

In other words, if Democrats sweep to victory next week, sure, progressives should celebrate -– it is what Dubya, two years ago, charmingly called an "accountability moment." Moreover, an unprecedented level of grassroots activism will have helped make it possible, always a good thing for a democracy in peril. But don't stop working on November 8. A lot of organizing will remain before the folks at the head of the Democratic Party pyramid pursue anything remotely resembling a progressive agenda.

That's the bad news in the prospective 110th Congress. The good news is at the next level down in the pyramid.

Progressives on Capitol Hill don't get party leadership positions these days. What they do get is seniority, especially in the House, where many have represented safe urban districts for decades. And this year, as never before, a remarkable number of congressional progressives are in line to become powerful committee chairs.

There are only a few progressives (or prospective new ones) in the Senate. I'd count Tom Harkin, Edward Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, and Patrick Leahy, along with Sherrod Brown and independent Bernie Sanders among the newcomers. On a good day, a handful of others will join them.

But if the Democrats should somehow edge into the Senate majority, look at what those five returning progressives would be doing. Four are in line to get committee chairs: Leahy the Judiciary Committee, Harkin at the Agriculture Committee, Kennedy the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Boxer, in all likelihood, the Environment Committee. The fifth, Feingold, is a probable presidential candidate and so will have elevated visibility.

That fledgling progressive caucus, especially Leahy at Judiciary, will carry influence all out of proportion to its numbers. But the real earthquake will be in the House, where all 21 committees are currently chaired by white men. When the Democrats (barring a miracle or Act Of Diebold) win the House, the Congressional Black Caucus will be instantly transformed from afterthought to power broker. And plenty of other progressives will be newly running things, too. Consider these probable new committee chairs: John Conyers (Judiciary); Alcee Hastings (Intelligence); Charlie Rangel (Ways and Means); David Obey (Appropriations); Henry Waxman (Government Reform); Bennie Thompson (Homeland Security); Louise McIntosh Slaughter (Rules); George Miller (Education); Barney Frank (Financial Services); Tom Lantos (International Relations); James Oberstar (Transportation); Juanita Millender-McDonald (House Administration); Nydia Velazquez (Small Business).

That's 13 of the 21 House committees. It's enough to make one giddy. And note that Conyers and Leahy control the two Judiciary Committees. While impeachment, however richly deserved, is a political non-starter (party leadership would never allow or support it), it's the committees that launch investigations and issue subpoenas. Despite the timidity of Pelosi and company, there's opportunity for hours' worth of "accountability moments" in the next two years should these far more progressive committee chairs start poking around.

At the broader legislative level, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi aren't especially inclined to prioritize legislation they believe will hurt the party's 2008 chances with donors (and, oh yeah, voters). But they can only work with the bills the congressional committees give them.

Buried in staff minutiae and far away from the headlines, the real good news as to how the 110th Congress will turn out is that a remarkable amount of the legislation to be considered might need to pass muster with progressive dealmakers before it ever reaches a vote.

That would be something worth celebrating.

(c) 2006, WorkingForChange.com

###