Congress is Broken! Call the Doctor!

I guess this is just another lost cause, Mr. Paine. All you people don't know about lost causes. Mr. Paine does. He said once they were the only causes worth fighting for, and he fought for them once, for the only reason that any man ever fights for them. Because of just one plain, simple rule, "Love thy neighbor," and in this world today, full of hatred, a man who knows that one rule has a great trust. You knew that rule, Mr. Paine, and I loved you for it, just as my father did. And you know that you fight for the lost causes harder than for any others. Yes, you'd even die for them,like a man we both know, Mr. Paine. You think I'm licked. You all think I'm licked. Well, I'm not licked and I'm going to stay right here and fight for this lost cause even if this room gets filled with lies like these, and the Taylors and all their armies come marching into this place. Somebody'll listen to me--some--

Jefferson Smith, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”

This is part two of my politics series, this one actually being about…politics.

This deals with Congress. Staggering to think that as unpopular as any President might be, Congress is nearly always less popular. Yet, when polled, most people express satisfaction with their own Congressman or woman. Why the disconnect?

And why can't Congress deal with any of the real issues affecting the country? Most people seem to have this idea that we elect people to Congress, who will go to Washington, analyze the issues, deal with other members reasonably, put aside personal interests and support reasonable legislation. But all the bleating calls for bipartisanship during campaigns seems to melt like ice on the driveway in Miami once the members get re-elected and head back to Washington. Because sometimes the “reasonable compromise” is impossible to sell back home. Across a broad range of serious problems affecting our country, such as the need for long-term energy independence, health care coverage, Social Security insolvency, and rampant fraud in a number of industries, Congress’ response generally is meek, late, and costly. The water is coming over the levees, while Congress argues about who should have built them higher (or whether Terri Schiavo should be kept on life support). I believe most of the talking heads, to say nothing of our national leaders on both sides of the aisle, have failed to confront the numerous systemic issues that have crippled the Congress and left it unable to deal with anything but the most dire emergencies.

Why is this important? Article I of the Constitution, the very first thing after the glorious “we the people” preamble, describes the Congress and gives it a long list of duties. The list includes “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Congress is supposed to be first among equals, and Congress is supposed to make the laws. Not the President. The so-called Imperial Presidency, which began with World War II but, after some setbacks, has revived in the Clinton-Bush era, is an aberration and is inconsistent with the Constitutional framers’ intent. But with Congress unable and unwilling to truly address the nation’s ills, successive Presidents have waded into this vacuum and dominated the legislative process. The President is supposed to execute the laws Congress makes and conduct foreign policy. The Constitution does not intend that the President have the dominant voice in law-making.

Political gerrymandering—This is the main reason, I think, why Congress is systemically incapable of working. The Supreme Court has essentially refused to stop the states from carving up Congressional districts to protect incumbents and create districts that are “guaranteed” for the party that dominates that state. This has given license to the states to make districts that are packed with voters likely to support one party or the other. With refined techniques to determine voter preferences on a very granular level, state legislatures can create districts dominated by voters of one party. To get elected then, the key is winning the primary, not the general election. Many studies have shown that few competitive Congressional races occur during the general election. Primary voters are much different than general election voters. Primary voters prefer that party’s policies, and therefore more uniformly are inclined to more extreme policies (in both parties) than the general electorate. To get elected, a candidate must therefore persuade voters that are more conservative or more liberal than most voters. So these types of districts produce candidates that are more conservative or more liberal than the general electorate. Because one party primary or the other typically is the “real” election, political gerrymandering produces Congressmen and women that are more conservative or liberal than if the districts were drawn in a way that had a more mixed population. So the people that the voters are sending to Congress are therefore more extreme in their views on one side or the other. Also, as I’ll discuss below, because they are beholden to a more hard-line electorate than the average voter, they must pursue and support more extreme policies. Moderates and pragmatists inclined to look at the big picture and work out deals to get 70-80% of what they really want don’t get elected to the Congress anymore. Its the partisan gunslingers who are getting elected.

We know what’s in the sausage—the simple fact is that the legislative process isn’t some quest for truth, and it doesn’t for the most part involve a lot of intellectual rigor. No, the legislative process is messy. A member might vote for something he or she ordinarily would oppose, in a deal to get votes for some other bill the member wants to pass. Or the overall bill will be pretty good, in fact, it may be very good (such as the defense budget), but may contain some stinker of a provision that isn’t enough to warrant voting against the bill but is still pretty bad. Or, you may vote for a bad bill just as a personal favor to some other member you’re hoping to cultivate as an ally on something else you want to promote (such as getting appointed to an important committee). Or you may vote one way on a bill that does something you approve, but you disapprove the way it does it. This sort of thing happens all the time, and indeed, it has to happen to get anything done in a 435-member institution. You couldn’t even get a unanimous vote to go to war after Pearl Harbor, for example. But the average voter, and certainly the partisan voter, just can’t understand this. For example, all the hard-line Republican voter can see is that you voted to fund some entity that sponsors teenage contraception programs, when in reality what you did was vote to for that year’s foreign aid budget. The best example of this sort of thing is the infamous John Kerry “I voted for it before I voted against it” episode. He voted for a bill that provided supplemental Iraq war funding by rescinding some prior tax cuts, but when that failed, he voted against the war funding from the general budget. The problem here is that with the expanded access to Congress and focus on its actions through C-SPAN, blogs, lobbyists, and other media, and better and faster means of communications, people now know about some of these votes and the things being approved. Members are petrified of voting for something that on balance is good, but may contain some poison pill that will be hard to explain back in the district. In the old days, someone would have to read the Congressional Record to know all the details in some of these bills, particularly the budget. Now, all you have to do is open the paper or turn on your computer to find out about some atrocity your Congressman has voted for, which in reality might make good legislative sense, but which the average person just cannot follow. A room full of rabid anti-abortion voters isn't going to buy your explanation that although you don't approve of abortion either, you voted for funding that might wind up going to pro-choice programs because the overall bill was a really important bill.

Greater focus on the process—this is hat in hand with the above. Until the advent of CNN and the 24-hour news cycle, Congress was scrutinized by the New York Times, Washington Post, the three major networks (who each were on air for 30 minutes a day, tops), and the news weeklies. That’s it. Those reporters hung out with the members, traded on their insider status, and by and large understood the process well enough to filter out extraneous or non-relevant details. Today, with the explosion of media, with bloggers, message boards, talk radio, and special interest lobbying groups, they all need content to sell. That means they have to air all the stories they can possibly find. Put it all on the air or on the net, and let God sort it out. So reporters are looking under every rock for some kind of “gotcha” story they can use to promote ratings and sell advertising. This means that more information goes out to people, and with the equal explosion of talking heads trying to sort it out, it becomes easier to demagogue an issue instead of focusing on bigger picture issues.

The rise of the Professional Politician—First Watergate, then Monica Lewinsky. A tidal wave of reporting on the members’ personal lives. The media hones in on scandal like sharks in the water. When they smell blood, they go for the kill. Remember that idiot in California whose intern got killed? He had an affair with her, but otherwise was just minding his own business. Then, she becomes a victim in what was later found to be a random attack while jogging, and all the sudden he’s portrayed as some sort of murderer, hounded out of Washington, and left on the scrap heap. Bob Livingston, Robert Packwood, the Keating Five, Larry Craig, Robert Torricelli, Jim Wright…members guilty of minor improprieties, or in some cases nothing at all, fall into the media spotlight for no good reason and find their careers and reputations in shreds. Any time someone new on the scene appears, their whole life becomes an open book with reporters looking for something to trash. It took them about 30 minutes to go after Sarah Palin and the state trooper firing episode, for example. So anyone with any kind of past life, or mistakes, or anything that could be used against them doesn’t get into politics. That means the people running for office, particularly Congress, aren’t people who’ve achieved something in other walks of life. Instead, they are people with good hair, spotless records, and a short list of actual achievements. St. Barack is an example. He’s for change, he’s for hope, blah, blah, blah. What has he actually done? Even there, he gets trashed for things his minister said. Not something Obama himself said or did—something his minister said. This echoes what Sam Rayburn famously said to Lyndon Johnson about all the intellectuals in the Kennedy Cabinet, “Lyndon, I just wish one of these guys had ever run for sheriff." So people without a lot of real-life experience in business, the military, or other institutions, wind up regulating these things. They have little idea how to deal with the real issues confronting them, so they defer to whichever lobbyists or special interests contribute to their campaigns, or check the polls to see what’s the most popular position to take. Which accounts for the great job they’ve done.

The demise of the parties and the House leadership—what used to keep the legislative wheels moving? The fear of what would happen to you, Junior Member, if you got in the way of what the leadership wanted. The leaders used to exercise an iron fist, controlling the House budget, committee appointments, perks, and appropriations decisions that affected how much federal money went to districts. A member didn’t dare buck the leadership, or he would wind up on some meaningless committee, would never get anything passed, would have a terrible office, and never get money for his district. But after Watergate and Abscam, Congress enacted a number of “reforms” that democratized the place. Perks and committee memberships are assigned by seniority. The leaders have far less power to control the process than before, and consequently, individual members do not have as much to fear in bucking their leadership. Witness the recent bank bailout legislation. The Republican leadership signed onto the Bush bill, but when it came to the floor for a vote, Republicans bailed by the dozens. In older times, any member who dared vote against the leadership, particularly on an important bill that was the result of a deal with the other party, would have been finished on the Hill. Now they can be heroes back in their district. Also, the parties don’t mean as much. Or put another way, the party leadership has given way to the activists. Party reforms, particularly on the Democratic side, after the 1968 Democratic Convention, have severely restricted the power of the party leadership to shape the selection of candidates. Back in the "smoke-filled room" days, the parties basically selected their own candidates, or closely controlled who would run in the primaries. Now, they are largely on the sideline as voters determine who gets nominated. On the Republican side, the “God Squad” took over. The litmus test for them is your position on the incredibly marginal issue of abortion. Something that occupies almost no actual legislative time whatsoever. On the Democrat side, it’s the Move On.org crazies. Over there, its hatred of the Iraq war and the fight against terrorism. Traditionally, a member was very reliant on party support to get elected. The jobs didn’t turn over that much, and having the party behind you was imperative. All those little old ladies that held fundraisers and handed out cards. Now, with the internet and ready access to mass media outlets, its more important to appeal to other types of grass roots organizations like these, who are committed and energetic in support of their candidates. They have eased out the parties’ nominal leaders and have become the true parties. This means that the erstwhile Democrat and Republican “elders” have almost no effect on the process. Would Hillary Clinton have pursued her kamikaze campaign into June back in the 1960s? No. Richard Daley or Walter Reuther would have crushed her. That is no longer a factor. And these organizations aren’t about getting legislation enacted for the greater public good. They’re about their own particular agendas and nothing else.

All these factors feed the basic problem that the people we send to Washington are closer to the political extremes than the days when Congress was able to enact major legislation. Who thinks Congress in its present form is capable of enacting far-reaching reforms in some of our major industries? The last major legislation I can remember Congress passing along those lines was the 2005 Federal Telecommunications Act. That one had all the stars line up, and didn’t involve any of the hot button issues that occupied all the K Street lobbyists. On issue after issue, Congress needs to step in and enact major legislation. But with all these factors stacked on top of one another, I can’t see it happening. The one thing Congress can do, and increasingly, the thing it has to do for its members to have accomplishments to run for re-election on, is spend money. Federal spending is beyond bloated; its scandalous. The faucets are wide open on spending, as members line up for projects for their districts to which they can proudly point when they go back home. While you may like some project in your district that benefits only your district, the cost of that is similar projects in 434 other districts. At this rate, there won't be any money left to tax because it will all go directly to Washington.

Now, the irony is, the Senate can get things done. The Senate isn't supposed to be able to get things done, however. Madison once wrote that the Senate, with its six year member terms, and its great tradition of debate and deliberation, was supposed to be the "anchor of government." Washington told the Constitutional Convention the Senate was to be a "saucer" to cool House legislation. Yet, because Senators are elected on a state-wide basis, and because it takes 60 votes to get anything passed, Senators are not as beholden to highly partisan voters and they have to work with members from the other side of the aisle. So you'll see something like Ted Kennedy sponsoring Bush education legislation, or the deal on judicial appointments with five members from each party adopting filibuster standards, or the Senate approving the bailout bill while the House balks. Its supposed to be the other way around, but the factors that have brought the House to gridlock don't apply with the same force in the Senate.

And as a postscript, I don’t see how Obama is going to wave his magic wand and unloose the locks on the dams holding back all the great legislation that will save mankind. Take health care. Clinton had working legislative majorities in both houses and couldn’t get health care reform passed. Carter had working majorities as well, and does anyone remember anything he passed? Democrats are renowned for internecine fighting. Obama is an empty vessel. All his support for “change” will start to break once people find out what the “change” consists of.

Be sure to vote early and often.

Next-my Presidential endorsements.