JONATHAN COHN DECEMBER 20, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I recommend an excellent essay from political scientist Josh Huder about why Congress is so unpopular, both in general and right now. As he notes, it has to do with the nature of the institution itself, not the (mis)behavior of its Members: “disapproval is built into the institution’s DNA.” Best cite: to a study that shows passage of major legislation actually tends to hurt Congressional approval, although note that the finding there is not uncontested. If, however, both passage of major legislation and gridlock can both hurt Congress’s approval, then perhaps (and this is only wild speculation) the 111th has been hurt by both its historic productivity and the much-remarked incorrect perception of gridlock. I don’t know.
Now, on the other hand, Huder doesn’t emphasize the cultural reasons for why Americans hate Congress—but he does, fortunately, provide an excellent example. In a post about how Congress is unfairly maligned, Huder writes about the history of internal improvements, and his examples of people who pushed projects are...George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower. Not that he’s wrong, but just to point out the overwhelming cultural bias in favor of crediting the big things that happen to presidents, not Congress. We do this reflexively...Barack Obama got DADT repeal through, after Bill Clinton failed. Barack Obama failed to pass energy/climate legislation. Yes, we’ll occasionally get articles about how Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are doing, and every once in a while we’ll have some attention to the individual legislative entrepreneurs who did the bulk of the work, but most of the time it’s going to be the president that we think of.
And that’s even more true as we go back through time: quick, when’s the last time you even saw Tom Foley’s name, let alone saw him blamed for some of the failures during Bill Clinton’s first two years in office? Or Hubert Humphrey and the reformers of the (House) Democratic Study Group given the credit for civil rights legislation? Certainly, JFK and LBJ deserve their share of the credit, but as you’ll recall from the 2008 Democratic primary debate about civil rights, we think in terms of LBJ vs. MLK, and HHH is mainly remembered...is he remembered at all today? I suspect if so, it’s by aging boomers who still resent him from the 1968 campaign, or by Tom Lehrer aficionados who remember him for being forgotten.
For a corrective, read David Mayhew’s America’s Congress, which emphasizes the individual contributions Members of Congress have made to specific legislation. Or, see Nelson W. Polsby’s classic essay, “Congress-Bashing For Beginners.” Still, I don’t pretend that it can be changed. I’ll quote myself: “People always hate Congress. Mark Twain hated Congress. Will Rogers hated Congress. Johnny Carson hated Congress. Jay Leno hates Congress, and I suppose the disembodied head of Jay Leno will be hating Congress decades into the future.”
Of course, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to figure out why this particular Congress, at this particular time, has such comparatively low approval ratings. Just remember, when you’re thinking about it, to place it in the great American tradition of Congress-bashing.
10 comments
I think your opinion of Congress has been affected by the Reaganite mantra "Government IS the problem". This has resulted from the Republican Party's mostly successful (and disasterous) attempts to dismantle the New Deal. When they're OUT of Congress, they talk it down. When they're IN Congress, they raise military spending, reduce taxes, reduce regulation, and increase the deficit. The resulting economic troubles they then blame on Congress or the Democrats or both. But this isn't inherent in Congress, simply the policies of the Republicans. True, this has been going on since the end of WW-II, but that doesn't make it inherent.
- AllanL5
December 20, 2010 at 4:48pm
True. It goes like this... When we ran the government. We ran it into the ground. Therefore government is inherently bad.
- MikeB.
December 20, 2010 at 4:50pm
HHH is only remembered these days when something happens to the roof of his eponymous Metrodome.
- wildboy
December 20, 2010 at 4:56pm
Americans have little interest in public policy, but politics is like football, with teams and winners and losers. Congress, though political, is associated with public policy, so whatever it does is understood hardly at all. When politics is the focus of Congress, however, the spoils redound to the victor. Given the nature of Congress, with 535 free agents, it's rare that participants can be brought together as a team. But when they are, Americans almost always gravitate to the winners.
- rayward
December 20, 2010 at 8:11pm
"When's the last time you even saw Tom Foley's name...?" It was about a month and a half ago, when I was writing about how the Mitchell/Foley team shafted Clinton during his first two years, and how similar this was to the damage done to Obama by the Reid/Pelosi tandem. Single-party rule is always a disaster without regard to which party. I'm looking forward to some useful cooperation over the next two years which will probably save Obama's presidency in much the same way Gingrich's Republicans saved Clinton's.
- Robert Powell
December 21, 2010 at 8:49am
I don't know why the unpopularity of Congress is treated as such as mystery. Americans either have just enough sense to know, or grasp subconsciously, that anyone capable of winning a popular election in this country is undoubtedly deserving of scorn.
- Fishpeddler
December 21, 2010 at 10:31am
RP, the problem with Obama first 2 years wasn't that the Democrats were in charge of everything; the problem was congressional Democrats being nattering little bishes and having their heads stuck up their butts. I'm looking at you, Ben Nelson. There's something to be said for Republican Obstructionism as well. And between the economy not being restored to how it was before the crash, and it being an off-year election, Democrats were doomed to lose seats, if not control. Having said that, I think it has been a relatively great 2 years by any standard; I would have like to see more stimulus and a lower unemployment rate, but I'm not one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Now, over the next two years it will be interesting to see how many times the government has to shut down because of Republican Intransigence and Obstructionism in congress, and whether or not Obama has the savvy to come out on top in public opinion; it'll be really interesting to see if Obama can get re-elected despite having not fixed the economy by then.
- GSpinks
December 21, 2010 at 3:36pm
fishpeddler goes Groucho:"I would never join a club that would accept me as a member." I see Republican obstructionism in the last Congress as a direct result of "Congressional Dems being nattering little bishes and having their heads stuck up their butts." The next two years are the acid test: either we secure the gains of Obama's first two years and advance, or we have another partisan fiasco. I vote for the first option.
- Robert Powell
December 21, 2010 at 4:32pm
That's funny, I see Republican obstructionism as a direct result of their overly Manichean world view combined with the zealotry of their faith-based politico-economic theories. Rather than debate the issues on their merit and achieve legislation that was standard fare only a few short years ago and let Obama take any form of credit, they did everything in their power to discredit Obama at every turn.
An acid test of what, exactly? I don't disagree that those are the main potential outcomes for the next two years, and I'd certainly like to see Obama's agenda advance and the economy improve dramatically, but it occurs to me that the outcome is based mainly on the actions of congressional republicans and secondarily on how the democrats respond. The house is going to come out swinging next year, and they're going to try to land a knockout blow on Obama with every punch. There'll probably be an unprecedented number of investigations into the executive branch, and I wouldn't be surprised to see new motions to impeach Obama every week for at least the first few months. If it's an acid test of anything, it'll be an acid test of the Republican Tea Party, and whether or not they're fit for the job of governing this country; that's about it...and I think they'll fail.
- GSpinks
December 21, 2010 at 5:08pm
I think Fishpeddler is on to something and Powell focuses on it. This is an impossible moebius strip theory: the only people who should be allowed to run for office should be people who don't want the jobs. Perhaps their families could be held as hostages until they complete a term with some evidence of public service.
- skahn
December 23, 2010 at 12:57pm