Fixing Congress

Despite all the hullabaloo about Trump, the really broken part of US governance is congress. That is easy to establish, but hard to fix. Even if steps can be identified to improve its performance, congress is unlikely to implement many of them, at least until we have turkeys up and down the land voting for Christmas.

The US has been underperforming as a nation since at least 1980. Mainly this is because its laws have not kept pace with the times and do not match the will of the people nor the interests of the nation. Results include declining life expectancy, mass incarceration, homelessness and inequality, unsustainable personal and national debt, rampant addiction and mental illness, failing foreign policy, and weak education. Before long the Chinese will be richer, the Europeans happier and everybody else anxious to stay away.

There are bright spots in the form of universities and tech companies, and it is true that more people want to come to the country than leave it. But for a nation with such a lead militarily and economically two generations ago and with such abundant advantages as its geography and its constitution, the performance has been stunningly poor.

The fault lies squarely with congress. It is true that there have been some woeful presidents, many unhelpful religious and corporate leaders, and some legacy attitudes to hinder progress, such as the gun culture and racial mistrust. But these persisted even while the US was doing well, and could all be circumscribed by an active and effective congress. Meanwhile, congress passes few laws, and many of the ones it does pass are either irrelevant or tend to make matters worse.

There are several causes. Around 1980, the executive made a power grab over congress and have continued that trend since. In 1994, Newt Gingrich essentially hijacked congress on behalf of a small minority, subsequently maintained by right-wing talk-show hosts. Around 2006, a well-intentioned decision to outlaw earmarks had the unintended consequence of blocking many compromises. From 2008, Mitch McConnell declared the sole aim of his party in congress to be blocking Obama. The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling in 2010 introduced a flood of money and rich interest groups to congressional elections. Since 1980, media has become more partisan and splintered, while technology enabled scrutiny of individual voting records, leading to pressure on members of congress to pander to uncompromising positions. Meanwhile, geographical divides between coast and heartland and city and country only hardened, cementing many states and districts as red or blue.

From this list, it is hard to separate root causes from symptoms, and also hard to identify remedies. Many of the factors flow from one another, while reversing some factors would not halt the flood of inadequacy. Some factors are simply societal trends that cannot be reversed.

A good place to start is in the mind of a member of congress. I assume most start out with the intention of serving the public and reflecting the interests of their constituents. This is not where they finish up, so it will be useful to establish why that might be.

I can imagine the life of a congress-person to be pretty compromised. Mostly, it is about money. It helps to be independently rich or have the backing of wealthy groups. Then, life is one long fundraiser, mixing with people of extreme views and a strong sense of entitlement, just like all those lobby groups in Washington. There is not much chance of returning to a normal life after this so-called service, even if there aren’t any legal skeletons that might land you in jail, so you had better stay in the job for ten or twenty years. The only way to achieve that is constant pandering to those donors and lobbyists, and keeping your nose clean with your voting record. Keep that head down!

Then there is the party. You might consider yourself pretty independent, but your choice from the two parties will consume you soon enough. How do you get any influence at all? How do you maintain an organization? How do you ally with others to keep some semblance of control over all the lobbyists? How do you retain your nomination when the boundaries of your seat change? In return, the party expects absolute loyalty, whatever the madcap views of the current president may be.

In most cases, the real threat to your position comes not from voters but from a primary challenger from your own party. So the people to watch out for are those same extremists and lobbyists that pay your bills, but might choose to pay somebody else’s instead tomorrow.

Scarily, or perhaps handily, most voters don’t even know who you are. If it is not a presidential election year, maybe only 30% will vote at all, so pandering to the extremists is a sound strategy. If it is a presidential year, you are just an invisible surrogate of that candidate, so you had better not stray out of line. All publicity is good publicity? Not for you, my friend.

I almost feel sorry for them, until I see their inflated egos, hear their pathetic hypocrisy and imagine their dodgy trust funds. But I think is fair to accept that they are mainly the inevitable product of a broken system.

So what can be done? Of course, very little is likely to be done, because the ones who would need to initiate change would be the same spineless people I have just described. But I suppose we can dream.

There are some obvious steps. Citizens United is not set in stone – it is an interpretation by judges of current law. But the law can be changed! Similarly, it is time to end gerrymandering. In 1992, I arranged a reorganization of business geographies by buying a simple piece of software. I think that 27 years later it should be possible to solve this one.

For this type of problem, I often look for single steps that would unlock many advances. How about term limits, say one six year term for senators and three two year terms for the house? Read the travails above, and think what this could achieve. Less wealthy people could apply and maintain their passion. Independents would have more chance. Lame ducks do not have to consider the lobbyists and extremist donors, just their legacy (and maybe even the interests of their voters).

I also think congressional elections could move to odd years, so that they are separated from presidential ones. It is disheartening to watch the democratic debate and realize that most of what they argue about does not lie within their responsibility. Split elections, and we can talk about policies that are relevant to each election. Then there are other good ideas, such as open primaries (rather than party ones), multi-member constituencies, and single preference voting – all designed to reduce the stronghold of the two parties. 

Finally, it would really help to have more people voting. Voting can be early, electronic and at weekends. There is also a case for compulsory or heavily incentivized voting.

I have tried to avoid being too partisan in this analysis. I do believe it is the systems of congress that are broken, not just individuals from one side. But I also believe there are acid tests. Generally, there is only one party consistently trying to make it harder rather than easier to vote. That is simply unforgivable.