Experts may not agree on how to reform Congress, but many blame partisan politics for its failure to address the nation’s problems. SoRelle Gaynor, a professor of public policy and politics at UVA, traces that trend to 1978 when Newt Gingrich was elected to represent Georgia’s sixth congressional district – long a stronghold of Democrats. Seventeen years later, he was Speaker of the House, and Republicans were in control.
"He is very much a political upstart in how he sees the institution could be reshaped, but it’s also a really ground-breaking election that Republicans win for the first time in decades," she explains.
Gincrich worked hard to ensure Republicans kept control of the House, but his chief of staff -- Dan Meyer – says he’s not to blame for today’s troubles. Meyer argues it’s the voters who have changed.
"We used to look for people + who could persuade. Think of John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan, and you’re hoping to win folks over, and of course they did."
Now, he says, people from both parties are looking for another trait when they elect congressmen and senators.
"The predominant motivation for a lot of voters these days is to elect somebody who will fight the other side, and until we get to a point where that becomes a liability and there is a preference for people who actually can work with the other side to get things done and to solve problems, I don’t see us solving a lot of these problems in Congress."
Louisa Terrell agrees partisan politics have made it harder to find solutions, but the former director of legislative affairs under President Joe Biden thinks the tide may be turning. She cites recent bi-partisan legislation to address the nation’s housing crisis and other issues on which the right and left converge:
"You’re seeing some issue alignment," she says. "The closeness of someone like Dan Osborn, running in Nebraska as an independent is seeking some of the same remedies that the mayor of New York City is seeking."
At the same time, she adds, voters are deeply impatient.
"So if you actually want to stay in office, I think you have to do things that demonstrate that you are doing things differently, because if not, it’s going to be Throw the Bums Out, and you are going to be the bum that is being thrown out."
That’s why she thinks Congress might be ready for change, but Shalanda Young, who’s worked in the federal government for more than 20 years, under presidents Bush, Obama and Biden, isn’t so sure.
"I don’t think approval ratings for Congress were over 12% since I’ve worked in Washington," she recalls.
And over that time, she notes, presidents from both parties have overstepped their constitutional authority.
"If I can’t get anything passed in Congress or get Congress to deal with any of the large issues, then I’m going to look at any executive route I can. I’m going to look at old laws and see if there are new ways to interpret them. I’m going to do executive orders. I’m going to do regulations."
To prevent that, she suggests members of Congress be very specific when they appropriate money.
"You feel the responsible thing when you’re in Congress is to give some leeway to the people managing day to day, but you have to earn that right, and if they’re not going to do that, you have to be much more restrictive.”
Many observers say Congress will not change until the nation ends gerrymandering – among them, Republican Dan Meyer.
"Redistricting has become so professionalized and refined that of the 435 congressional districts, there are almost 400 districts that are safe for the two parties, and the most important election you have tends to be the primary and not your general election."
But Shalanda Young says gerrymandering is only part of the problem.
"That doesn’t explain why we see the senate move in a more partisan direction. They don’t have gerrymandering statewide. When I got to D.C. Iowa was represented by Chuck Grassley. who is still there, and Tom Harkin – one of the most progressive, liberal members of his party. Since then, Iowa has had two ruby-red senators."
And the mid-term election may show that redrawing congressional boundaries is not always a recipe for victory.
"Gerrymandering doesn’t work with a very angry electorate," Young contends.
She thinks the frequency of House elections is an issue that should be addressed. Knowing there will be another vote in two years, members have little incentive to compromise on legislation, preferring to wait for a new group of lawmakers who might be more favorable to party goals.
"In the House especially, when the House is up for grabs every two years, there’s not a lot of incentive to put the institution over political party."
And, frankly, she says the current cycle leaves little time for the business of making laws.
"If we’re now raising 2, 3, 5, 6 million dollars for house races, what do you think they have time to do on the policy front?"
It would take a constitutional amendment to increase terms for members of the House, and that could take years. For now, our experts suggest smaller steps to make Congress more effective. Dan Meyer, for example, recalls the advice Newt Gingrich gave to fellow Republicans.
"He used to tell members, ‘Don’t turn down opportunities to travel with members of the other party. That’s when you actually get to know them.' Whether it’s playing baseball or traveling or informal bi-partisan dinners, small groups of them, I think that’s very helpful."
And Democrat Gaynor says there’s data to back that up.
"I find, kind of in a fun paper, that members who play on the Congressional baseball team together, are more bi-partisan and co-sponsor bills together."
Another change on which lawmakers might agree involves staffing. Given the complexity of our world, Gaynor argues Congress needs more help to craft and pass effective laws. The problem, she notes, is that young staffers get up to speed – then move on to more profitable pastures.
"The best-paid staff would probably max out at about $200,000 – which, of course, is a nice salary, but DC has a very high cost of living plus the work hours are very intense, but then you look at how much a lobbyist with a similar amount of experience makes. It’s two or three times that," she explains.
And if members of congress are not well-informed by staff, she worries they may be more vulnerable to lobbyists. Which is why Terrell argues that congressional committees need well-paid, permanent, non-partisan experts.
"The kinds of issues that are confronting families and communities are just happening so quickly and often they’re complex problems where Congress doesn’t have the resources, doesn’t have the expertise sometimes."
One other proposal from Louisa Terrell: members of Congress might sponsor less ambitious bills that make small but meaningful changes where a majority of lawmakers can agree.
To join a livestream of the two-day conference, copy and paste
https://millercenter.org/news-events/events/remodeling-congress-inside-and-out-day-1.
and
https://millercenter.org/news-events/events/remodeling-congress-inside-and-out-day-2.
For more from Louisa Terrell, check out her new book: Echo Chambers: How Partisan Communications Took Over Congress.
