Democrats Discover Change Can Reach The Leadership Office

Senate Democrats have won themselves a lovely new majority, and Chris Van Hollen has ruined the unwrapping by asking whether the gift receipt covers management.

The Maryland senator announced Thursday that he will challenge Chuck Schumer for Democratic leader. His argument is that voters demanded change and the caucus should try some internally. A dangerous interpretation. Political parties generally prefer change to stop at reception and leave a résumé.

Schumer remains the favorite, according to the Associated Press, and says he has the votes. He helped recruit winning candidates and raise their money. His supporters can point to legislative accomplishments as well as the election. This is a real record, not a decorative bowl of individually wrapped excuses.

It is also not a deed to the office. Winning candidates need a leader for what comes after the victory photograph, when the giant novelty check turns out to be a list of things people expect you to do.

That is the useful argument here. Schumer is discussing health care, tariffs and efforts to stop the Iran war for the new Congress. Van Hollen, backed by Bernie Sanders and incoming Michigan senator Abdul El-Sayed, has not yet supplied a full competing agenda in the AP’s account. A leadership challenge needs more than a better entrance. Eventually somebody has to explain what happens after the walk-on music.

So ask both of them. What will this majority fight for? What will it risk? Which promises survive the first afternoon when being popular and getting something done turn out to occupy different conference rooms?

Instead, the contest heads toward a closed-door secret ballot, with most senators backing Schumer or not publicly choosing. The public clamors for change; the caucus will discuss the matter somewhere the public cannot hear it. Democracy, with the soundproofing package.

Schumer may win. Van Hollen may make him defend how he intends to lead. Neither result requires Democrats to pretend a contested election is a personal insult. They have just spent months explaining the value of giving voters a choice.

Surely the concept can survive one flight of stairs.