Julian Zelizer, a Professor of History and Public Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School, has authored the commentary, "Running the Senate ain’t easy," for the October 29 edition of Politico.
 
In recent months, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has been criticized by commentators for his inability to achieve consensus in the Senate around major legislation, such as healthcare reform. In addition, critics have compared Reid unfavorably to previous Senate leaders, Lyndon B. Johnson and Mike Mansfield, famous for their successes in achieving compromise. Zelizer writes, “Reid does not seem to have their legendary ability to find compromise within an institution that is notorious for ego-driven decision making.”
 
However, Zelizer asserts, “some of the criticism about Reid focuses too much on the man and not enough on the institution. During Johnson’s days as majority leader, liberals frequently complained about how much trouble he had controlling the Southern barons who dominated the major committees.” Similarly, Zelizer notes that Mansfield had problems in the 1970s when he was accused of allowing Southern senators to retain too much power, and for failing to stop the Vietnam War.
 
Zelizer argues that reformers were not expecting the Senate to become so difficult to govern in the time since Johnson and Mansfield held leadership positions. He contends that in the past, “filibusters had been reserved for a few high-profile issues such as civil rights… [but] during the 1980s and 1990s, the filibuster became a normal tool of partisan conflict on major and minor issues. The 60-vote requirement to pass a bill is now considered normal.”
 
The prevalence of the filibuster now means, “the Senate majority leaders must keep almost all of his or her party united. There is virtually no hope of winning over legislators from the other side of the aisle,” according to the Zelizer.
 
 The author believes that the current nature of the news media is also to blame for the problem facing Reid. He writes, “the 24-hour, instantaneous news cycle makes it more difficult for the majority leader to negotiate a deal. . . Senate leaders lack the kind of political space that is necessary to broker complex agreements.”
 
In concluding, Zelizer writes, “Reid’s critics may very well have a valid point about his skills. But we must remember that he leads an institution where it is extraordinarily difficult to achieve major innovations. Even the legendary Johnson didn’t look so successful back when he was working his magic. Until party leaders deal with the underlying institutional challenges that they face, as reformers tried to do in the 1970s, we are unlikely to get radically different outcomes, regardless of who controls the place.”