Victory Jeopardized

Liberal Democrats in the House are fighting this week to prevent Speaker John W. McCormack from filling a vacancy on the powerful Rules Committee with Rep. John Young, a conservative Texan. If McCormack's intentions are carried out Young would replace Rep. Homer Thornberry, also of Texas, who has been nominated for a Federal judgeship.

It is imperative that McCormack be thwarted in this move, one which may force President Kennedy to enter the fray. The President has already been asked to do so by the protesting Congressmen, who are members of the Democratic Study Group, an informal organization of 125 House liberals.

These Congressmen, led by Study Group chairman Rep. John Blatnick of Minnesota, fear Young is conservative enough to turn against the Administration and restore control of the Rules Committee to the lethal Southern Democratic-Republican coalition. Since 1961, when Kennedy successfully fought to reorganize the Committee, liberals have held a slim 8-7 advantage. Thornberry, however, was a member of the majority, and the loss of his vote could prove disastrous for bills the Administration must get past the Committee.

No one in Washington is suggesting Speaker McCormack is purposely trying to turn the Rules Committee over to the conservative coalition. But many are charging him with faulty judgment, saying that despite pious promises Young is a conservative, and could turn, in time, against the liberals.

Young will probably be kept out. The Democratic Study Group is a powerful collection of House Democrats, and should be able to obtain the support of the President. In addition, the threat hangs over McCormack's head that to press Young might mean the end of his career as Speaker. As a "liberal spokesman" told the New York Times Sunday, "If John McCormack insists on doing this to us--placing John Young on the Rules Committee--he is putting his future as Speaker in great jeopardy. There are a lot of people in the House who would love not to see him Speaker in the next Congress."

But even if the liberals succeed in blocking Young, two other important questions raised by this incident remain to be answered. The first is the fate of McCormack. It is not only people in the House who would like to see him replaced as Speaker. His leadership has been consistently mediocre, to put it mildly, and is a chief reason why the Administration's legislative program continues to have so much trouble in the House.

One of McCormack's major faults is that he dissipates his influence through a propensity to speak on the floor on almost every bill. His great power, to be effective, must be used selectively. A Congressman's influence on his colleagues is a kind of legislative money, and the more he spends on trinkets, the less he has left for necessities.

A second of McCormack's failings is his inability to round up and hold key votes for Administration measures. For instance, last April the leadership was made to look very bad when it lost a "sure" vote in the Appropriations Committee and wound up having to take a ten per cent cut in its program for aid to depressed areas

McCormack should go. He is a liability the President, and those who support the Administration's legislative aims, cannot afford. The current controversy over the Rules Committee is only one example of his ineptitude.

A second, broader question raised by the Democratic split this week is the extent of the President's commitment to modernizing procedural rules in both the House and the Senate. Kennedy fought hard to enlarge the Rules Committee and cripple its inhibitory power; now he will have to fight again if his work is not to go for naught.