When Seth Moulton first seriously considered running for Congress in 2012, it was as an independent. That makes sense because he isn't really a Democrat and he has nothing to do with Democratic Party values. He is an independent. But he knew he couldn't win as one-- not in Massachusetts' 6th district-- the northeast corner of the state, stretching from the New Hampshire border, following the coast down through Ipswich, Gloucester and Salem to Lynn and into the suburbs not of Boston. He didn't run in 2012 but started planning to take on Democratic incumbent John Tierney and announced in 2013. It was a rough primary with Moulton diligently working to hide his right-of-center perspective and right-of-center national support. He beat Tierney by 10 points in the primary. He joined the New Dems and started accruing a "centrist" voting record. ProgressivePunch gives him an overall rating of "F" and a lifetime crucial vote score of 74,24, the worst of any member from Massachusetts. In 2016, happy enough with him, the Republican Party didn't run a candidate against him.

Considered one of the most ego-centric and aggressively ambitious members of Congress, he's behind the rolling right-of-center coup against Pelosi. Yesterday he penned an OpEd for CNN, Nancy Pelosi Should Step Aside . He's a smart guy and makes a good case. "I think it's time for change. We need a speaker of the House who will harness all of the new voices in Congress to put forth a bold, progressive vision for the country -- someone who will give the great new leaders in our party a chance actually to lead. That's where current leadership falls short. In recent years, committee leaders have mostly been chosen based on loyalty and tenure, leading to a lack of diversity and new thinking in some of the most important positions in our government. There are 21 permanent committees in the House, but many of the ranking members have been there for years, and the vast majority are white. Only three ranking members are women. We can't expect anything to change if we keep putting the same people in the same positions. Newer Democratic members, fresh off the campaign trail, are the ones who are most in tune with the country, and we can't squander their leadership by sticking them all on the back bench. If we're going to tackle gun control, inequality, climate change and the other defining issues of our time, we'll need their fresh ideas and different perspectives to do it."

OK, how about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for Speaker? Or Rashia Tlaib? If that's what Moulton was fighting for, his coup would be overwhelmingly popular. But he's not and it's not. This week RJ Eskow wrote a piece for Alternet, Wall Street is leading the attack on Pelosi-- Steny Hoyer is the real barrier to the progressive agenda . To understand the rebellion, he suggests that we all "follow the money." He posits that "The anti-Pelosi insurgency is not a movement. It’s a cabal, orchestrated by the appropriately hashtagged #FiveWhiteGuys, a group of self-self-interested players with big money behind them." That's the Moulton group. "If you’re looking to change politics," Eskow wrote, "they don’t reflect you."

This ersatz rebellion’s most visible leader is Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, a custom-crafted biography in a suit who appears to hold no core beliefs. That’s undoubtedly a plus for the political operatives who recruited and promoted him. An early profile has Moulton variously calling himself “a progressive Democrat,” a “pragmatic Democrat,” and a “frustrated Democrat”-- and that was just during his first primary.





Moulton was reportedly recruited to run for Congress by “New Politics,” a group that seeks to elect both Democratic and Republican veterans. It describes itself as “bipartisan,” a word will come up again in the story of the anti-Pelosi rebellion. New Politics’ other success story is Republican Rep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, who notably blamed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, rather than the ill-advised Iraq war, for the rise of ISIS.





Moulton, who reportedly backed that tragic misadventure, enjoyed the early support of two generals who helped lead it, David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal. (Unfortunately, both are now disgraced: McChrystal for disrespecting the civilian chain of command, and Petraeus for revealing secrets to an extramarital lover as he cheated on his wife, a crime that would have likely led to criminal indictment for a less well-connected official.)





As the Washington Post reports, Moulton “has aligned with Republicans on some policy bills, ranging from a ban on the gun accessories used in last year’s mass shooting in Las Vegas to a recent legislation allowing veterans to use medical marijuana.”





Moulton had praise for Pelosi when he was asked about her last year, saying she had achieved an “awful lot.” He told Politico’s Michael Kruse that he thought much of the Republican criticism of her was “unfair,” but added, “the reality is that we’re losing.”





Well, Pelosi’s winning now. What’s his rationale for opposing Pelosi today? “If that many seats change hands,” Moulton said after the election, “that’s just all the more reason the American people are calling out for change.”





Heads, he wins. Tails, Pelosi loses.





Moulton’s given to making hazy statements like: “Congress needs a new leader. Period.”





The only concrete thing about him appears to be the money he’s raised for like-minded candidates. “Thanks to a network of donors rooted in the financial centers of Boston and New York,” reports the Post, “Moulton’s Serve America PAC and related political committees raised a combined $8 million for the election cycle.”





Moulton has been well-rewarded for his ideological plasticity. During his short political career, Moulton has received a total of $1,723,870 from the investor class that comprises the so-called “FIRE” sector-- financial, insurance, and real estate. He has also received more than $160,000 from Pharma.





...The rhetorical style of these Democratic “rebels”-- vague on the issues, big on cliches and platitudes, the rhetorical equivalent of cotton candy-- comes with a pedigree. It is the hallmark of “centrism,” the billionaire-funded political faction that serves its financial backers by selling themselves as “non-ideological,” “technocratic” architects of “bipartisan” consensus who can “break the gridlock” and “solve problems.”





For this crowd, “solving problems” always winds up meaning the same thing: cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and an unwarranted obsession with the federal deficit that always-- just accidentally, mind you!-- winds up helping corporations and the billionaire class.





The “centrist” political style claims to be “above parties and partisanship”-- which, in the end, is another way of saying it’s free of any principles except the interests of its paymasters. It often comes in the guise of patriotism, as when Seth Moulton says he places “country over party”-- a comment that, implicitly, is a deep insult to those who believe one party’s proposals would serve the country better than the other’s.





The anti-Pelosi campaign is being supported by one of the mainstays of the corporate centrist world-- the cynical political ploy known as “No Labels,” which I wrote about in 2012, and its creation, the “Problem Solvers Caucus.” If you called “No Labels” a guaranteed-employment plan for Republican and Democratic political hacks, you would not be wrong.





Besides, the Problem Solvers Caucus-- which, predictably, promised to “break the gridlock” and get things done-- hasn’t solved any problems. Given their agenda, that’s a good thing-- but it’s hardly a mandate to lead.





It’s Not About the Speakership-- It’s About Blocking Progressive Change





The No Labels crowd is throwing its public influence (negligible) and its ability to muster campaign cash (considerable) behind the anti-Pelosi effort for a reason: they see this as an opportunity to weaken the Democrats’ newfound power in the House. That’s especially urgent for the big-money crowd at a time when nearly half of successful new candidates ran on Medicare for All and more than 100 House Democrats have joined the Expand Social Security Caucus.





The “centrist” campaign may help explain why Pelosi plans to impose a new rule making it harder to raise middle-class taxes. This rule would make it harder to achieve either Medicare for All or expanded Social Security, even though any new taxes would leave the working class much better off financially than it is today.





Rep. Tom Reed, a Republican member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, has already indicated he could back Pelosi if more such changes were put in place. The caucus’ additional proposed changes, roughly outlined here, would effectively give Republicans veto power over progressive legislation.





It is noteworthy that there was no serious attempt to implement these rules when Republicans ran the House.





Even more than the speakership, this procedural power grab motivates the anti-Pelosi crowd and its backers. They might even withdraw their opposition to her if they could seize this power for themselves and their “centrist” allies in both parties.





No wonder these “rebels” are vague about their goals. Given the massive support for Medicare for All (more than 70 percent of the public, 85 percent of Democrats) and expanding Social Security, they know their agenda is extremely unpopular. If they truly believed in “country over party,” they would support programs that most of the country wants and needs.





...Here’s something else worth knowing about Democratic power in the House: Its party organizations are still deeply hierarchical, and are built on deeply embedded relationships. If the Moulton/Ryan gang succeeds in unseating Pelosi, the speakership will not go to someone the left supports. Sure, it would be great to see Barbara Lee become Speaker, but that simply isn’t going to happen. Besides, she’s not even running. (Lee is running for the House’s number five position.)













The Five Guys (not to be confused with the burger chain of the same name) and their backers are almost certainly looking for one of two outcomes: either Pelosi accedes to their demands, which will paralyze the Democratic agenda, or Pelosi is replaced with someone who will. But if Pelosi goes down, that replacement will probably not be Rep. Marcia Fudge, despite her public expressions of interest (as of this writing) and Moulton’s professed support for her.





The Five Guys may block Pelosi, but they will not choose her successor. Instead, in the chaos that would follow a Pelosi defeat, the speakership will probably go to the second-highest member of the Democratic hierarchy: Steny Hoyer.