Post by benson on May 29, 2022 11:45:20 GMT
The civility crisis in Congress
On the night of March 1, 2022, President Biden gave his State of the Union address to assembled members of Congress. As the president talked about helping American veterans suffering from injuries and illnesses, controversial Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert (R, CO-3) shouted from the floor, “you put them there — 13 of them,” likely referring to American service members who were killed during the U.S. evacuation from Afghanistan last year. To hear a member of Congress heckle the president at that moment was no surprise: Congress is suffering from a civility crisis.
In the past, when a person was elected to Congress, they would often move their entire family to Washington D.C. Members lived next door to each other, their children went to the same schools, they played golf and went to dinner with each other’s families. Today’s members spend significantly less time in D.C., leaving their families in their home states and living in rented apartments, or for some, even sleeping in their office. To idealize the earlier culture of Congress may be hindsight bias, as it was anything but a completely harmonious and civil institution before its members were in Washington less regularly, but when what little time they spend in Washington is taken up by work alone, it is easy to see why members of Congress no longer develop civil relationships with each other.
The cost of housing in D.C. makes it challenging for members of Congress who are not independently wealthy to stay in the city for long periods of time, as well as the ease of travel that the modern era affords means that members can easily travel back-and-forth from Washington when necessary. However, this alone is not the cause of the current crisis: Another culprit is the change in how party politics is conducted.
When the Democrats lost what seemed at one time like a “permanent majority” in Congress in the latter half of the 20th century — Republicans flipped the Senate in 1980 after a generation of Democratic majorities and made inroads in the House — politics became less about compromise and more about being as different as possible from the opposing party. In her book, Insecure Majorities, Frances Lee describes how a competitive, two-party Congress changed the nature of politics. “The primary way that parties make an electoral case for themselves vis-a-vis their opposition is by magnifying their differences,” which explains the more extreme ideological shifts in Congress. Unfortunately, this change bleeds over to relationships among members, as “nonideological appeals accusing the other party of corruption, failure, or incompetence are at least equally valuable and can potentially attract swing voters, as well as fire up the base.” This means that members of Congress have no incentive to form relationships with those across the aisle — it is better to stay hostile and maintain the image of your party as the opposite of the other.
While responsibility for this development lies with Republicans, Democrats, and the nature of party politics, many point to Republican Newt Gingrich as the champion of confrontational, no-compromise politics. During Gingrich’s time in Congress, he oversaw the rise of a new wave of confrontational, conservative members who were encouraged to play dirty, refuse compromise, and wage war against the Democrats. As Lee highlights in her book, Gingrich “wanted Republicans to withdraw from bipartisan negotiations,” and used his Conservative Opportunity Society to strategize with other Republicans on how to confront and attack Democrats at every turn. Compromise was not an option, so there was no real reason for congress people to make an effort to maintain good relations with members of the other party.
Of course, while Gingrich is the standout figure of this style of politics, the Democratic Party is not necessarily an innocent victim of Republican polarization. Robert Byrd, the longest-serving Democratic senator and the party’s leader at the time, played a major role in restructuring the Democrats following the loss of the Democratic majority in 1980. Byrd steered the party towards a more combative style of politics, and away from the bipartisan compromise that often characterized the Senate earlier in its history. For example, Byrd began whipping votes against a debt ceiling increase sought by the Reagan Administration, to the dismay of many Democrats, Lee writes. Gingrich may get the spotlight for his inflammatory rhetoric and role in reshaping the Republican party, but the developments of modern politics led leaders of both parties to push back against the idea of compromise and mutual respect. Both Democrats and Republicans now encouraged their members to stay true to the party line, and politics became about attacking the other party as much as it was promoting one’s own. Which leaves us in the situation we face today — a polarized congress where members do not even get along with each other outside of politics.
While there are more policy-oriented possibilities, such as lowering rent in D.C. or requiring members to stay in a dormitory when Congress is in session, the fundamental change that needs to happen is much simpler. Members should remember that regardless of party, they are here for the same goals — to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the country. Nobody should expect politicians to agree on everything, but they could at least expect them to get along outside of the chambers.
Politicians are a model for how Americans view people from other parties; when average Americans see their members of Congress heckling during the State of the Union, and know that they do not interact outside of their sessions, they will treat the other party as an enemy, further polarizing the masses.
Would more civility result in better policy? Probably not, as the nature of politics has changed, and a more competitive Congress means that compromise will continue to become more difficult. But it is not impossible to picture a competitive Congress where members disagree ideologically, but at least treat each other with respect. Ideally, better informal relationships between members of Congress will inspire better relationships between average Americans with differing partisanship.
centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/notes-on-the-state-of-politics-may-5-2022/
On the night of March 1, 2022, President Biden gave his State of the Union address to assembled members of Congress. As the president talked about helping American veterans suffering from injuries and illnesses, controversial Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert (R, CO-3) shouted from the floor, “you put them there — 13 of them,” likely referring to American service members who were killed during the U.S. evacuation from Afghanistan last year. To hear a member of Congress heckle the president at that moment was no surprise: Congress is suffering from a civility crisis.
In the past, when a person was elected to Congress, they would often move their entire family to Washington D.C. Members lived next door to each other, their children went to the same schools, they played golf and went to dinner with each other’s families. Today’s members spend significantly less time in D.C., leaving their families in their home states and living in rented apartments, or for some, even sleeping in their office. To idealize the earlier culture of Congress may be hindsight bias, as it was anything but a completely harmonious and civil institution before its members were in Washington less regularly, but when what little time they spend in Washington is taken up by work alone, it is easy to see why members of Congress no longer develop civil relationships with each other.
The cost of housing in D.C. makes it challenging for members of Congress who are not independently wealthy to stay in the city for long periods of time, as well as the ease of travel that the modern era affords means that members can easily travel back-and-forth from Washington when necessary. However, this alone is not the cause of the current crisis: Another culprit is the change in how party politics is conducted.
When the Democrats lost what seemed at one time like a “permanent majority” in Congress in the latter half of the 20th century — Republicans flipped the Senate in 1980 after a generation of Democratic majorities and made inroads in the House — politics became less about compromise and more about being as different as possible from the opposing party. In her book, Insecure Majorities, Frances Lee describes how a competitive, two-party Congress changed the nature of politics. “The primary way that parties make an electoral case for themselves vis-a-vis their opposition is by magnifying their differences,” which explains the more extreme ideological shifts in Congress. Unfortunately, this change bleeds over to relationships among members, as “nonideological appeals accusing the other party of corruption, failure, or incompetence are at least equally valuable and can potentially attract swing voters, as well as fire up the base.” This means that members of Congress have no incentive to form relationships with those across the aisle — it is better to stay hostile and maintain the image of your party as the opposite of the other.
While responsibility for this development lies with Republicans, Democrats, and the nature of party politics, many point to Republican Newt Gingrich as the champion of confrontational, no-compromise politics. During Gingrich’s time in Congress, he oversaw the rise of a new wave of confrontational, conservative members who were encouraged to play dirty, refuse compromise, and wage war against the Democrats. As Lee highlights in her book, Gingrich “wanted Republicans to withdraw from bipartisan negotiations,” and used his Conservative Opportunity Society to strategize with other Republicans on how to confront and attack Democrats at every turn. Compromise was not an option, so there was no real reason for congress people to make an effort to maintain good relations with members of the other party.
Of course, while Gingrich is the standout figure of this style of politics, the Democratic Party is not necessarily an innocent victim of Republican polarization. Robert Byrd, the longest-serving Democratic senator and the party’s leader at the time, played a major role in restructuring the Democrats following the loss of the Democratic majority in 1980. Byrd steered the party towards a more combative style of politics, and away from the bipartisan compromise that often characterized the Senate earlier in its history. For example, Byrd began whipping votes against a debt ceiling increase sought by the Reagan Administration, to the dismay of many Democrats, Lee writes. Gingrich may get the spotlight for his inflammatory rhetoric and role in reshaping the Republican party, but the developments of modern politics led leaders of both parties to push back against the idea of compromise and mutual respect. Both Democrats and Republicans now encouraged their members to stay true to the party line, and politics became about attacking the other party as much as it was promoting one’s own. Which leaves us in the situation we face today — a polarized congress where members do not even get along with each other outside of politics.
While there are more policy-oriented possibilities, such as lowering rent in D.C. or requiring members to stay in a dormitory when Congress is in session, the fundamental change that needs to happen is much simpler. Members should remember that regardless of party, they are here for the same goals — to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the country. Nobody should expect politicians to agree on everything, but they could at least expect them to get along outside of the chambers.
Politicians are a model for how Americans view people from other parties; when average Americans see their members of Congress heckling during the State of the Union, and know that they do not interact outside of their sessions, they will treat the other party as an enemy, further polarizing the masses.
Would more civility result in better policy? Probably not, as the nature of politics has changed, and a more competitive Congress means that compromise will continue to become more difficult. But it is not impossible to picture a competitive Congress where members disagree ideologically, but at least treat each other with respect. Ideally, better informal relationships between members of Congress will inspire better relationships between average Americans with differing partisanship.
centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/notes-on-the-state-of-politics-may-5-2022/