If Democrats take the House this fall, will Speaker Pelosi sing the same old song or whistle a new tune?

Much has changed in the 12 years since Democrats last controlled the House, especially the relationship between the Speaker and committee chairs. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would no doubt envy the power GOP  Speakers have had in choosing chairs, limiting their terms and enforcing party discipline, but old memories and the current crop of Democratic ranking members might make it hard for her to exercise such power.

Nelson Polsby’s How Congress Evolves lays out how for most of the 60 out of 64 years that Democrats held the House, their caucus was deeply split between a majority of liberals from outside of the South and a very significant minority of Southern conservatives. The divided caucus left little opportunity for leaders to enforce party discipline. With this dynamic, chairmen were selected on committee seniority alone, became chairmen for life and often acted directly against their own party leaders.

When Republicans took the majority in 1994, no Republican member of the 104th Congress had ever served in the majority. No one had ever been called “Mr. Chairman” or even realistically considered what it would be like to hold the gavel. Republicans members owed their majority status to Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who had brought them to the promised land of the majority after many years in the wilderness.

This unique set of circumstances allowed Republicans to restructure the relationship between leadership and chairs. In many instances, they bypassed the most senior members of a committee for younger, more energetic and more committed lower ranking members, and they instituted six-year term limits for chairmen. Gingrich further weakened the power of committee chairs by frequently employing task forces of handpicked members that circumvented committee jurisdictions.

Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has abandoned task forces and followed more of a regular order with respect to the jurisdiction of committee chairs. Even so, chairs are still much less independent than they were under Democratic control.

So what would Speaker Pelosi do? I asked that question recently to former Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.), who believes that Democrats would govern somewhere in between Democrats pre-1994 and where Republicans are now.

Without a doubt, the Democratic Caucus is more ideologically united than ever. Consider that during the time of Speaker Sam Rayburn (D-Texas) the caucus almost never met as a whole because their differences were so great. Contrast this with Pelosi’s recent threats of punishment against members who do not attend caucus meetings. With such unity, there will be pressure for chairs to toe the party line, as there currently is on the Republican side.

On the other hand, many in the Caucus will bristle against the idea of chair term limits and moving away from the seniority system. Senior Democrats will argue for a return to the old system. Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.) and George Miller (D-Calif.) were once chairmen. Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and David Obey (D-Wis.) would have chaired the Judiciary and Appropriations committees, respectively, in the 104th but for losing the majority. And others have patiently advanced up to the position of ranking member.

Don’t expect them to relinquish their posts gladly. Speaker Pelosi will have to work hard to make a melodious whole out of these opposing strands.

Fortier is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.