Text size:

Clinton successor must complement Schumer

BY WENDY J. SCHILLER | Wendy J. Schiller is associate professor of political science and public policy at Brown University and author of "Partners and Rivals: Representation in U.S. Senate Delegations."

December 7, 2008

Gov. David Paterson faces a significant challenge in finding a replacement for Sen. Hillary Clinton, who is expected to be confirmed as secretary of state in January. Not only is Clinton a hard act to follow, but the job of representing New York State is no easy task.

Have you ever spent time with people from Montauk and Buffalo in the same room? To the residents of Manhattan, Westchester County is upstate! To the residents of Oswego, Brooklyn might as well be another country. New York State contains such geographic, economic, ideological and environmental diversity that balancing the state's concerns can be as tough as balancing the nation's.

At the same time, a senator is expected to address national issues and make a mark of distinction in a specific issue area. Usually a senator from New York is a heavyweight in Washington, with clout and national name recognition - a tradition that includes Jacob Javits, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Charles Schumer and Clinton.

So what qualities does Paterson's appointee need to have?

Contrary to popular belief, senators do not just cast up or down roll-call votes, make speeches on the Senate floor and attend fundraisers. To represent a state well, a senator has to sit on the right committees, introduce bills and amendments, help individual constituents navigate a massive bureaucracy by making phone calls and writing letters and, of course, bring home as much federal money as possible. This is especially crucial when more revenue leaves New York than comes in from Washington.

Knowing where the money was, a newly elected Sen. Moynihan met in 1977 with Sen. Robert Byrd, who had just become Senate majority leader. Moynihan argued for a seat on the Finance Committee, a bold act for a freshman senator. He got that seat, the first New York Democrat in nearly a century to do so, and used it to secure millions of dollars for the state. He also won a position on the Environment and Public Works Committee and, later, Foreign Relations. These helped him establish a major profile nationally.

One overlooked requirement of being an effective senator is to work well with the other senator from the same state. Take the team of Moynihan and Alphonse D'Am- ato. They did not share the same political party, but they shared a keen insight into how to make the most of each other's strengths and weaknesses. When I worked for Sen. Moynihan in the 1980s, there was a saying: "When you want a passport, go see D'Amato, when you want a lesson on the history of immigration, go see Moynihan."

These two divided the labor of representing New York State by pursuing different committee assignments, focusing on different issues and adopting different styles of interacting with constituents. Schumer and Clinton have followed suit.

This is actually a tradition that goes back to the earliest years of our nation, when senators were elected by state legislators, which generally tried to balance the team by selecting people from different regions or who represented different economic interests.

By time the 17th Amendment was adopted in 1913, allowing for popular election of senators, voters had come to expect that senators from the same state would carve out distinct careers, representing the state but in markedly different ways from each other.

On an individual basis, the most effective senators on both sides of the aisle have mastered the arts of balance and persuasion. This is because a majority leader has to seek unanimous consent to bring up bills. Unlike the House of Representatives, where the speaker can use her majority party power to bring bills to the floor and pass them, the Senate needs cooperation to function. Senators have to be able to work with colleagues of both parties, in committee and on the floor.

Names that become most familiar nationally, such as Ted Kennedy, Orrin Hatch, Dianne Feinstein and Arlen Specter (and there are others with lower profiles), have earned the respect of their colleagues, built coalitions on behalf of their bills and shown repeated willingness to compromise.

But they all had time on their side, or at least a full six-year term. The person that Paterson appoints will only have two years to make a good impression on fellow senators and the voters of New York State.

This suggests someone who has a proven track record in working well with other elected officials, a command of key issues important to the state, and who has demonstrated a flexible decision-making style.

On top of these personal and professional qualities, national political factors also figure into the governor's decision. The Democratic Party in the Senate is just two members short of a filibuster-proof majority. If they can reach a 60-seat majority in 2010, Democrats will have the capacity to pass their preferred proposals without the typical obstruction and delay that occurs in the Senate.

To do this, the Democrats must hold all their current seats. It will be in the party leadership's interest to give Clinton's replacement good committee assignments and public visibility, which will allow him or her to show New York he or she can do the job well.

The Democrats did the same thing for Feinstein in 1992 when she was elected to fill a two-year vacancy; she was put on key committees and publicly credited with passing gun control legislation (national issue) and desert protection legislation (California issue) during the next two years. She won her tough re-election battle in 1994 and has not faced a tough challenge since.

Paterson is consulting Schumer on his choice, which is a smart move. Schumer spent the past two election cycles in charge of electing Democratic senators. If anyone can identify an electable candidate, he can. And Schumer will be working more closely with Clinton's replacement than anyone else in the Senate.

It will be a crowded political arena in 2010 in New York. Both senators will be up for election, and if he chooses to run, so will Paterson. As at the national level, unified party government often produces a backlash, causing voters to look more closely at "out party" candidates to balance out representation.

New York State tends to go through brief periods where all the key statewide offices are held by one party, but this typically does not last long. Add to the mix a unified Democratic-controlled federal government and 2010 offers a ripe year for moderate Republicans who want to run for any of these statewide offices.

All the more reason to appoint someone who has a proven record with the voters and who can show that he or she is willing and capable of being an effective voice for them.

Wendy J. Schiller is associate professor of political science and public policy at Brown University and author of "Partners and Rivals: Representation in U.S. Senate Delegations."