At last. I’ve finally found someone who sees our political situation more as I do. At RealClearPolicy Philip A. Wallach and James Wallner are skeptical about the narrative of Congressional dysfunction due to polarization:
It turns out that the conventional wisdom on polarization does not explain legislative behavior particularly well. That may be because polarization, properly understood, characterizes the appearance of politics, not its reality.
Today’s divergence between Democrats and Republicans in Congress does not indicate that members share no common beliefs or values. Instead, it reveals a political environment in which legislative leaders are extremely skilled at agenda-control and issue-suppression — at avoiding certain kinds of votes, for instance.
All of the measures of extreme polarization in the Congress are actually measures of the effectiveness of Congressional leaders in controlling the agenda.
More specifically, leaders work hard to keep divisive issues off the agenda for as long as possible. When that is no longer an option, they resort to crafting must-pass legislation behind closed doors with little or no input from the rank-and-file. Leaders then wait until the last minute to unveil the legislation in order to confront members with a fait accompli, thus increasing the chances that the bill will pass while minimizing the exposure of partisan divisions.
What to do about it? The implications of that hypothesis are that we need better leaders with different motivations and that implies a different process for selecting Congressional leaders. Or, alternatively, we could just content ourselves with the same lousy results we’ve been getting.
The practical problem is that Congress won’t change that of its own accord—present rules preclude it. And the present Congressional leadership won’t change it because they’re the primary beneficiaries of Things As They Are.
Update
No Labels has some related suggestions—letting all of the members of the House vote on who should be Speaker and getting rid of the “motion to vacate”.
The Constitution contains a tradition of ‘petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.’ It allowed citizens to communicate with the Congress and initiate a legislative response. The 1844 “gag rule” preventing petitions on the subject of slavery was considered an act of despotism in the North by people not necessarily that interested in slave-agitation, but realizing that a powerful faction could take away this important right in general.
In any event, just saying there was a time when the people could influence the agenda through petitions, and it was considered dangerous.
I’m foursquare behind representative government. I just don’t think that the present tyranny of the leadership is representative of anybody except the leaders.
Many states presently have an initiative procedure. In California these initiatives are inappropriately called “referendums”. It’s amusing the degree to which some of these referendums, e.g. Prop 13, have become “third rails”.
I think that Illinois is distinctive in being possibly the least populist state in the Union. There is no initiative, referenda and recall are extremely limited, it has a relatively weak governor and very strong legislative leadership. It’s hard for me to imagine being less populist than putting the entirety of power in the state in the hands of a guy who’s elected by about 10,000 voters in one tiny Chicago neighborhood but that’s the way it is.
I would say remove the requirement Representatives be in chamber to vote. Let them live and legislate from their home states. Get them out of The Bubble.
My dad used to say that there was nothing wrong with the Congress that a Constitutional amendment banning air conditioning in the House Chamber and other places where Congressmen met wouldn’t cure.
I don’t know of organizations where the freshmen come in and start calling the shots. The real solution is term limits so the entrenched can’t just run their fiefdoms in perpetuity. The counter argument – it’s the will of the people – seems weak indeed. It’s more like the zombification and buyoff of the (favored) people.
Fresh blood might not be perfect, but it could hardly be worse.