New Democracy Forum

12 BR MAY / JUN 2011 illustration: kyle nelson U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper with responses from

Kenneth A. Shepsle 00 Norman J. Ornstein 00 John Samples 00 Kathryn Pearson 00 John G. Geer 00 David W. Brady 00 Stephen Ansolabehere 00 Nick Nyhart 00 U.S. Rep. David E. Price, & Andrew Gelman 00 Jim Cooper replies 00

BostonReview.NET maY / JUN 2011 BR 13 Forum

ormer Senator Howard Baker once said, “There are three things I simply cannot understand: the Holy Ghost, the Middle East, and the House of Representatives.” Baker is not alone; most people are mystified by Congress. But they do believe that it is badly broken. F I’ve been a congressman, off and on, for almost 30 years. ernment: insurance. The giant entitlement programs, in- I’ve witnessed the decline of Congress firsthand, but the cluding Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and VA health decline is not what really worries me. Congress has been care, as well as government-subsidized private insurance, broken and fixed before; it’s always been the butt of jokes. are so expensive that, collectively, they dwarf even national What worries me is that the United States, as the world’s defense and homeland security. Far more is spent on insur- only superpower, cannot afford a congressional breakdown ance than on interstate highways, national parks, scientific now. Worse, as an aging superpower, we may be losing our research, agriculture, etc. Yet, despite the dominance of in- capacity for self­renewal. Until now, we’ve always been able surance, Congress has no committee on insurance, no fo- to recover just in time; our greatest strength has been resil- cused expertise on dealing with insurance issues. ience. As Winston Churchill reportedly said, “Americans can These vital entitlement programs are not, as politicians always be counted on to do the right thing—after they have claim, sacred commitments, vested benefits, or even govern- exhausted all other possibilities.” ment promises: they are simply scheduled benefits that we What follows is a fundamental critique of a Congress do not know how to fund. Until we fix this disconnect be- that Churchill would barely recognize. I focus on the House tween politics and reality, these programs are in jeopardy. much more than the Senate because I know the House bet- The sooner we act to stabilize them, the more likely we are ter, though the need for filibuster reform and other changes to save them. It will be painful, but we should be thankful in the “upper body” is urgent. And because of my sense of we still have a little time. urgency, I am going to offer my critique in topic sentences. Faced with daunting problems such as these, Congress This is a tough diagnosis, but it’s better for the patient to often refuses to use the right tools. In fact, most members hear the news early rather than late. There is still enough barely know what our toolbox contains. Year-round cam- time to cure Congress: not much, but enough. paigning distracts us from learning how to craft legislation I see a Congress that is willfully blind to our nation’s that works well. We learn instead how to craft ideas that worst problems. For example, the true national debt is sound good. Tax credits are a classic example. These sound many times higher than most published figures suggest, golden on the stump, but are usually a waste of money, as much closer to $50 trillion than $15 trillion. Because Con- MIT economist Jonathan Gruber has shown with regard to gress has exempted itself and the federal government from health-care tax credits. normal accounting rules, few people notice our unfunded Finally, Congress has grown spoiled because, these days, obligations. Harvard Law Professor Howell Jackson is a rare the president hardly ever vetoes legislation. For most of his leader; his research and writing have repeatedly shown the administration, George W. Bush vetoed fewer bills than inadequacy of government accounting. But not even The any president since Thomas Jefferson. Every president Wall Street Journal reports the real “accrual” numbers—the since Nixon has had power to rescind spending programs numbers that reveal all the obligations that have been un- approved by Congress, and each exercised that power hun- dertaken, not just the actual transfers of money. Few inter- dreds of times. Our last two, however, have been reluctant. est groups pressure the federal government to implement Bush didn’t rescind a single spending item in his eight accrual accounting, so Congress sleeps. President Obama’s years in office. In his first speech to Congress in 2009, Fiscal Commission was unable to wake us. President Obama called, in essence, for an end to earmarks. Tax expenditures—including deductions for home-mort- The next day his Democratic Congress gave him 8,500 ear- gage interest and exclusions for employer contributions to marks, yet he did nothing about them. I am thankful he health insurance—are another huge but overlooked set of threatened to veto any new earmarks in his 2011 State of policies. Tax breaks now exceed all appropriations, but Con- the Union speech, but Congress won’t believe him until he gress rarely holds hearings on this annual $1.3 trillion drain fights back. on the nation’s revenues. We need tax reform now. So how did Congress get this bad? And why didn’t we We also need to reform the core business of federal gov- notice?

14 BR MAY / JUN 2011 forum

The 1980s page dormitory. Chairing a campaign committee was a When Tip O’Neill was speaker in the 1980s, Congress chore, not a position of prestige. was very different—imperfect but functional. O’Neill believed that he was speaker of the House—the­ whole The 1990s Congress House—not simply leader of the Democrats. His aim was Congress has deteriorated since the O’Neill era. An not to see Democrats win every vote but to enable the House important turning point arrived in 1995, when Newt Gin- “to work its will.” He criticized President Reagan during the grich became speaker. Gingrich centralized power in the day and drank beer with him at night. He was proud of his speaker’s office and politicized its function. He effectively powerful committee chairmen, such as Dan Rostenkowski merged the speaker’s office with the majority leader’s and of Ways and Means. whip’s. Committee chairs were emasculated, their authority On major policy issues, members were expected to vote redirected to the speaker. Gingrich waged total war against their conscience and their district: O’Neill’s was a House President Clinton, even shutting down the government intent on making policy, not partisan mischief. It was the temporarily in an effort to get what he wanted. Whereas job of the eloquent majority leader, Jim Wright, to put to- O’Neill had sought to promote the influence of the House, gether partisan majorities, and the job of the gentlemanly Gingrich’s goal was to see Republicans win every vote. minority leader, Bob Michel, to defeat them. Members dis- Gingrich’s rise to power was, of course, due to the Repub- agreed without being disagreeable. You were considered a lican takeover of the House—the first Republican majority party loyalist if you supported your party’s position 70 or in 40 years. No incumbent Republican had ever governed in 80 percent of the time. Members knew exactly what they the majority, and no incumbent Democrat had ever served were voting on because an elite group of staffers called the in the minority, so neither party knew how to behave. Democratic Study Group wrote authoritative pro-and-con Majorities naturally tend to be arrogant and minorities ir- memos before every important vote. Dozens of Republican responsible. The bitter debates surrounding the impeach- members subscribed to the Democratic Study Group be- ment of President Clinton and the thousand subpoenas of cause they trusted its work. the White House issued by Indiana Republican Dan Burton In the O’Neill era, members worked four or five days hardened the attitudes of many House Democrats. Compro- a week in Washington, D.C., where their families usually mise became a dirty word. lived. Members knew each other fairly well and spent time Gingrich ordered freshman Republicans not to move with each other’s spouses and children. A few members did their families to Washington because he thought they belong to what O’Neill called the “Tuesday–Thursday Club,” needed to campaign full-time at home. Soon everyone be- preferring a shorter workweek that allowed shirking of leg- longed to the Tuesday–Thursday Club. Members became islative duties. In their defense, these members could do strangers, the easier for them to fight. constituent casework—an important congressional respon- The next speaker, Dennis Hastert, continued Gingrich’s sibility—as well or better back home in their districts. approach when he admitted that he listened only to Repub- On the House floor, “king-of-the-hill” rules of debate licans, “the majority of the majority,” as he put it. Congress were common. Under such rules, members were allowed became even more starkly polarized; party-unity scores, to choose among competing solutions to national problems. The solution with the most votes won, sometimes even if another proposal had already Taxpayers are hiring mediocre received a majority. King-of-the-hill rules allowed talent, candidates who think their members some freedom of choice, thereby mak- ing it harder to predict how they would vote. job is to ignore policy in order to The ’80s were also different in terms of the get elected and reelected. fundraising expectations placed upon members and parties. Back then you never contributed to your col- which measure how much the members of a party vote leagues’ election campaigns except in emergencies. Cam- together, rose above 90 percent. Objective information paigns could cost as much as several hundred thousand sources such as the Democratic Study Group were banned. dollars, but only if they were hotly contested. Giving a col- Leadership told members how to vote on most issues and league money was a kind of insult, as if you were handing force-fed talking points so that everyone could stay “on them an unwanted tip that acknowledged their struggle for message.” King-of-the-hill voting was ended. All major reelection. Likewise political parties did not dare charge floor votes became partisan steamrollers with one big “yes” members dues; on the contrary, their job was to help the or “no” vote at the end of debate. No coherent alternatives members. The chair of the Democratic Congressional Cam- were allowed to be considered, only approval of party doc- paign Committee, an arm of the House Democrats, worked trine. Instead of limited legislative freedom, a member’s in a modest room several blocks from the Capitol, near the only choice was between being a teammate or a traitor.

BostonReview.NET maY / JUN 2011 BR 15 Forum

The cost of campaigns escalated into the millions. Some credit rating, and whether Democrats will join this appall- members began spending day and night on “call time”— ing game of chicken. dialing for campaign dollars from telephone banks near But Congress isn’t ready to do the people’s work just yet. the Capitol. Parties started dunning their members to pay Instead, members are mostly concerned with redistricting a minimum of $100,000 in biennial dues, but some were and raising cash. charged many times more in order to remain “in good standing.” Colleagues began demanding contributions Redistricting from each other, sometimes just to pay their dues. Instead Many members are panicked about their districts dis- of legislating and doing casework, members of Congress appearing in the next few months. They love their districts. morphed into telemarketers. The heads of party campaign Tommy Burnett, an old Tennessee legislator, used to say, committees suddenly had their pick of offices in the Capitol “There are two things you don’t mess with: my wife and my itself because they were being groomed for leadership. district . . . and not necessarily in that order.” However, the Constitution requires that each member of the House rep- Return of Democratic Control resent the same number of people, currently about 700,000. When Democrats finally took back control of the Every ten years, the lines are redrawn to meet that require- House in 2007, Democratic leaders did not even try to re- ment. Some states are losing congressional seats, others are turn to the policies of Tip O’Neill. Rather, they quietly ad- gaining, and most will rearrange their existing allotment. opted most of the bad habits of Gingrich and Hastert, even Let’s be frank: Democrats and Republicans both love ger- of the notorious Republican leader Tom DeLay. Few Demo- rymandering. I represent one of only 91 districts (out of 435 crats remained who could remember the O’Neill era. We total) described by the authoritative Cook Political Report abandoned the idyll of Brigadoon and settled instead for as “politically balanced,” meaning that a strong candidate Lord of the Flies. Some said it was impossible to go back from either major party could win there. But both political because times had changed. Fox and MSNBC had certainly parties think that 91 is too many. Each party is working hard inflamed partisanship. Social media had popularized non- to create fewer competitive districts. Advanced digital map- fact-based reality. ping and statistical analysis help them etch tiny lines on The truth is that the Gingrich-Hastert-DeLay model large and detailed maps, enabling them to split neighbor- works . . . if you are only interested in partisan control of hoods and blocks—because politicians know a great deal Congress. No speaker wants to yield to stubborn commit- about your voting habits. The secret ballot is almost gone. tee chairs or opinionated rank-and-file members. It’s better Today, both Democrats and Republicans are trying to to keep them in the dark because doing so quells dissent. hide the fact that regular voters have no voice in redistrict- It’s also easier for back-benchers to follow the party line in- ing. It’s a reverse election: voters like you don’t get to vote, stead of thinking for themselves. This quasi-parliamentary only politicians. You don’t choose them; they choose you. In system is certainly efficient. What’s lost are the hallmarks most states, the public is excluded from participating in their of Congress as a policymaking body: open debate, indepen- state legislatures’ deliberations on redistricting. This secret dent decision-making, and the priority of national over par- election can determine the outcome of most congressional tisan interests. elections for the next ten years, possibly for generations. Gerrymandering fosters extremism on the left and right because extremists are more popular in either Congress has grown spoiled. These highly Democratic or highly Republican districts, where candidates do not have to appeal to cen- days, the president hardly ever trist voters. In such districts, primary elections vetoes legislation. determine the outcomes of general elections. Because relatively few centrist or independent Today’s Congress voters participate in primaries, newly elected extremists Members of the 112th Congress took the oath of of- are vulnerable only to someone more extreme. States with fice earlier this year. Two members missed the swearing party-registration laws further protect extremists by out- in because they were attending a fundraiser. The first ac- lawing independent as well as opposition voters. With a tion on the floor was reading the Constitution aloud. The firm grip on their districts and no worries about alienating first weekend after the oath, a beloved colleague, Arizona voters in the other party, gerrymandered extremists are of- Representative Gabrielle Giffords, was nearly murdered in ten the loudest voices in Congress. Tucson. Since then, both parties have tried to behave more Recently I filed H.R. 419, the Redistricting Transparency civilly; they even sat together during the State of the Union. Act of 2011, a bill with nineteen cosponsors that could re- The big vote that everyone is dreading is the debt-ceiling in- duce the incidence of gerrymandering by requiring disclo- crease: whether Republicans will risk ruining the country’s sure of redistricting maps before new boundaries are en-

16 BR MAY / JUN 2011 forum

forced. This would give the public a chance to intervene and Finally, Citizens United could reduce the role of Wash- stop the abuse. ington lobbyists. Why use a middleman if you can buy di- rect? This may seem like a good thing, but, despite all the Money criticism of K Street, it could be worse. Today’s lobbyists are Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts relatively identifiable (many are former members of Con- warned that today’s campaign-finance law assumes that gress), and play with a relatively small amount of money members of Congress always demonstrate “perfect ingrat- (thousands not millions). To be sure, these lobbyists are not itude.” In other words, current law allows Congress to be paid to advocate good government, but they usually sup- flooded with money but demands that members stay dry. port pretty-good government. In a Citizens United world, Good luck with that theory. You might as well allow profes- stateless advertising agencies could shape public opinion sional athletes to take money from gamblers, so long as they by satellite, cable, or radio without ever talking to a voter or promise not to throw any games. Last year, the average member of Congress Current law allows Congress to raised about $1.6 million for a job that pays a be flooded with money but demands tenth of that. The ten most expensive House cam- paigns cost more than $8.5 million each and the that members stay dry. top-ten Senate races more than $27 million each. A new member’s lapel pin is probably the most expensive elected official. By comparison, lobbyists look pretty good. piece of jewelry in the world. Ironically, the cure for Citizens United may be corpora- Some campaigns raised all that money; others were res- tions themselves. This would be a welcome reprieve because, cued—or attacked—with outside, “independent” television otherwise, we must amend the Constitution or change jus- advertisements in the final weeks of the campaign. The Su- tices, both very difficult tasks. I doubt that most large corpo- preme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election rations wanted the new freedom that the Court gave them, Commission mobilized those commercial cavalries last year but will they resist the temptation to use it? For a few years, when it allowed corporations to campaign for the first time. most companies will be unfamiliar and uncomfortable with Already these new troops have boosted election spending their new electioneering powers, and may worry that they by $300 million, but the sky is the limit now that such mer- could lose market share if they offend customers. Mean- cenaries are legal. while, a few corporate fanatics could damage the image of I have several objections to Citizens United. First, allow- Citizens United spending, causing a backlash against the ing corporations, which are “artificial persons” under the Court’s decision. Which will come first: corporations master- law, free speech rights puts regular citizens—ordinary hu- ing the art of campaigning, or consumer retribution against man beings—at a disadvantage in our democracy. A bet- highly political firms? We can only hope for the latter. ter name for Citizens United is Corporations Supreme. The Court should stop emancipating these artificial persons, Next Steps these business robots. This year the Court is considering Limiting gerrymandering and corporate political giving corporations privacy and due process rights. What’s spending would help improve Congress, but deeper reforms next? Voting rights for corporations and unions? are needed. In politics as in life, you get what you pay for. In Second, Citizens United has the potential to increase dra- politics today, taxpayers are hiring mediocre talent, candi- matically the money involved in American politics. No mat- dates who think their job is to duck the big policy issues in ter how expensive today’s campaigns are, they look cheap order to get elected and reelected. Fixed salaries do more to to major corporations. Businesses routinely spend far more perpetuate this terrible status quo than most people realize. advertising toothpaste, diapers, or potato chips—often with Today, it is almost unthinkable to suggest paying Con- less return on their investments. In contrast, a million dol- gress for results. Many other professionals, however, such lars cleverly spent on politics can easily turn into a billion as teachers, physicians, CEOs and athletes, are increasingly in tax breaks or government subsidy. From what I can tell, paid for performance. Why not members of Congress? that seems to be the going rate these days. (Note: I am not advocating an overall congressional pay Third, Citizens United allows attacks by unknown groups raise.) The first objections will come from members them- with hidden sponsors. You may never know which Citizens selves because they hate the thought of taking full responsi- United cavalry saved or ruined your election because these bility, looking bad, or making less money than a colleague. It mercenaries do not wear uniforms. The Federal Election is precisely that fear, however, that promotes better behav- Commission is unlikely to force timely disclosure because it ior. Why not pay members of Congress for performance? is notoriously flat-footed, timid, and lenient. Already half of Surely there’s a way to measure and reward high-quality Citizens United spending is anonymous, a percentage that legislative work. will grow. Here’s a thought experiment: what if members were

BostonReview.NET maY / JUN 2011 BR 17 Forum

paid on commission to cut spending or to repeal obsolete for taxpayers to benefit from the same level of performance laws? My bet is that you’d start to get some real action on that special interests have been receiving. budget deficits and redundant statutes. Of course, Congress The average tenure of a House member is about ten should already be doing these things, but carrots make both years, just long enough to get a government pension and donkeys and elephants move faster. start looking for better-paying work lobbying Congress. Salary reform alone won’t get the job done, so here’s Congress used to be an honored destination, but now it is another thought experiment: what if members could only a steppingstone to special-interest wealth. Because of this raise money from people who live in their districts, not out- revolving door, Congress has long been a farm team for side interests? That would put a premium on residency and K Street; after Citizens United, it could become a wholly raise the stakes of redistricting. It would also give local tax- owned subsidiary. payers more influence. We should expect more from Congress, but let us not expect too much: that is a recipe for disillusion- Gerrymandering can determine the ment. Cynics, they say, are disappointed roman- outcome of most congressional tics. Congress will always be a sausage factory, but it can be a better sausage factory if we get elections for the next ten years. the incentives right and if top-quality people vol- unteer or at least help those who do. Teach for Incentives matter, and today’s incentives are simply not America could channel its participants into campaigns or working. We need better people to run for office. We need government if they decide not to stay in education; law and them to focus on the most important issues. We need fewer, business schools could start “Lawyers for America” or “Busi- better laws, not more loopholes. We need more attention to ness for America” to help us reform Congress. policy, less to partisan politics. Empowering citizens to craft Despite the flaws of Congress, we should never lose faith incentives is a way to ensure that we get the right kinds of in our country, our ability to bounce back from adversity. candidates. The very fact that we know Congress is broken should give The real surprise in discussing merit pay for members us hope: it is a sign that help is on the way. Once diagnosed, of Congress is the realization that special interests have the body politic automatically starts to heal, and the worse been paying members on that basis for decades. Political we feel now, the prouder we will be of our recovery. action committees give more money to members who are As Mark Shields said of the Tucson shooting, quoting a effective in advancing their interests. Then they hire them historian friend of his: “We saw a white, Catholic, Repub- as lobbyists after they leave office. Political action commit- lican federal judge murdered on his way to greet a Demo- tees write much bigger checks than individual taxpayers cratic, woman, member of Congress, who was his friend and do—their contribution limit is twice as high for individual was Jewish. Her life was saved initially by a twenty-year-old candidates, and there is no limit to how much they can give Mexican American college student . . . and eventually by a to a party. Now Citizens United has put special interests on Korean American combat surgeon. . . . And then it was all eu- steroids. It turns out that taxpayers are the only ones who logized and explained by our African American president.” are not paying members for performance. Maybe it’s time Only in America.

Prize: $1,500 & publication in the magazine Previous winners include D.A. Powell, Susan Wheeler, and Elizabeth Willis Submit your work today!

18 BR MAY / JUN 2011 forum

mittee member assuming the chair’s Rayburn, together with liberals in the position. But “usually” did not mean party caucus, felt the major obstacle to “always,” the difference between the legislative success for the new presi- two determined by the preferences dent was the House Rules Committee, Kenneth A. Shepsle (whims?) of the speaker. in charge of regulating plenary time. George D. Markham Professor of Government at Harvard University Although there is some dispute Two of the twelve-member commit- among political historians, it is gener- tee’s eight Democrats (including the ally believed that Cannon, more than Chair) and all four Republicans to- most speakers, made a number of ex- gether formed a blocking coalition. ceptions to these emerging practices, Rayburn felt he had to move against mainly to punish his enemies (pro- the committee. In a historic 217–212 gressive Republicans). But he went too far, several of Congress has enjoyed his rulings were reversed, periods of reduced and, ultimately, he lost committee-assignment au- partisanship, but they thority. After the Democrats never last. captured the House in the 1910 elections, their leader, Missouri’s vote, Rayburn and the liberals pre- Champ Clark, occupied a much-weak- vailed in passing a resolution increas- Representative Jim Cooper has ened speakership. ing committee membership to fifteen, written an elegant cri de coeur elabo- The recent speakerships of Georgia allowing for the addition of two liber- rating his views of a dysfunctional Republican Newt Gingrich and Cali- als from the Democratic side, while Congress. I want to pick up on one fornia Democrat Nancy Pelosi were the Republicans added another con- of his themes, namely the difficulties not as excessive as those of the Boss servative from their ranks. This was of properly organizing a legislative Rule era. But the look and feel of the Rayburn’s last gift to the new admin- chamber. House a century ago and the House istration (he died shortly thereafter): a I am especially struck by the tim- during these more recent periods was relatively reliable working majority on ing of Representative Cooper’s essay. that of a legislature tightly organized the committee that was the legislative If he had written this piece exactly a by the majority party and its leaders. traffic cop. hundred years ago, in 1911, he might Representative Cooper’s complaints If the revolt against Boss Rule at have said many of the same things. about parliamentarianism are spot-on the beginning of the twentieth century This was the end of the period of “Boss for this latter time, as they would have led to more decentralized control, the Rule” in the House, symbolized by the been in the early twentieth century. move initiated by Rayburn had the op- overbearing speaker, Illinois Republi- If, on the other hand, Representa- posite effect. Though not apparent at can Joseph Gurney (“Boss”) Cannon. tive Cooper had written on this subject the time, speakers following Rayburn Cannon was the last of a two-decade 50 years ago, in 1961, he would have would grow increasingly powerful. run of speakers who had a consider- reached very different conclusions. Speakers O’Neill and Wright, among able grip, if not a stranglehold, on In January of that year, as the 87th Representative Cooper’s heroes, accu- parliamentary ebbs and flows. For Congress was organized with Texas mulated growing power over the flow example, although most speakers in Democrat Sam Rayburn as speaker of legislation—multiple and sequen- this era delegated committee assign- and a new Democratic president about tial referral of bills and the imposition ments of minority-party members to to be inaugurated, the House was no of time limits for committee consid- the minority leader, they tenaciously parliamentary regime. To the contrary, eration of bills, for instance—and ap- held onto majority-party appointment Speaker Rayburn was structurally pointment of committee members. power. It should be noted that dur- quite weak and accomplished as much Gingrich’s Republican revolution fol- ing this period a nominal property as he did by dint of personality and po- lowing the 1994 elections completed right to committee positions as well litical wisdom, not formal authority. the resurrection of the speakership to as a seniority norm were emerging, Indeed, power had been radically its full powers. Speaker Pelosi did not and, accordingly, returning members decentralized in the 50 years since look this gift horse in the mouth. The were usually assured reappointment Boss Rule. Committee barons, their jury is still out on Speaker Boehner. to the committees on which they positions guaranteed by a strict ap- Placing Representative Cooper’s es- served in the previous Congress, with plication of the seniority norm, were say in this historical context, it seems the most senior majority-party com- in a commanding position. Speaker there are two powerful equilibrium

BostonReview.NET maY / JUN 2011 BR 19 forum

modes of legislative organization that ization that eventually became in the need to be considered. The first is a standard in the ’90s. The South gradu- majority-party arrangement tightly or- ally became the core of the Republi- ganized from the top—Boss Cannon, can Party, while New England and the Norman J. Ornstein Gingrich, and Pelosi are the exemplars. West Coast became reliably blue. Over Resident Scholar at the American The second is also a majority-party ar- Enterprise Institute time the Democrats became more ho- rangement, but one more decentral- mogeneous and moved left; Republi- ized and less controlled by party lead- cans became more homogeneous and ership. The golden era of powerful moved right. Democrats still have a committee chairs, roughly 1940–1974, smattering of ideological heteroge- illustrates this latter equilibrium. neity via the Blue Dogs (including Political scientists have argued Jim Cooper), while Republicans have that which equilibrium arises de- barely a trace element of moderates, pends upon the level of cohesion and no liberals, left in Congress. The within the majority party. A highly movement left and right has also been cohesive majority party is permissive affected, as Cooper notes, by redistrict- in delegating authority to its leaders. ing over the past two cycles, which has A more internally divided majority created many more safe and homoge- party is less trusting of concentrated neous districts and echo chambers to power. Republicans under Gingrich reinforce lawmakers’ views. and Democrats under Pelosi exem- I have been in Washington, D.C. The ideological shifts inside Con- plify the concentrated-power model since 1969, longer than even Represen- gress have been exacerbated by an- of organization, while a highly diverse tative Cooper, and I have never seen other broad phenomenon—the in- Democratic party in the mid-twentieth it more dysfunctional. The problems, creasing dominance of the permanent century (northern liberals, southern as Cooper notes, start with partisan campaign. When I arrived in Washing- conservatives, suburban moderates) divisions. The National Journal vote ton, D.C. there were two distinct sea- and perhaps Boehner’s Republicans ratings for the 111th Congress showed sons—a campaign one, and a govern- today provide the circumstances in that the parties have virtually no ideo- ing one. Campaigns understandably which the rank-and-file members of logical overlap: the most conservative used the metaphors of war. Govern- the majority are more nervous about Democratic senator was empowering party leaders. to the left of the most lib- Congress is at a low Representative Cooper’s wish is eral Republican; only nine point, but targeted for something in between. A strong House Democrats were to partisan model, whether with concen- the right of the most liberal reforms can improve trated or dispersed power within the House Republican. In both the quality of majority party, is not his cup of tea; it the Senate and House, the smacks of parliamentary, not congres- center of gravity is nowhere candidates and policy. sional, democracy. Yet a more delib- near the center of the politi- erative and reflective, and only mildly cal spectrum. ing, on the other hand, is an additive partisan, legislative politics is difficult The change from previous decades process, often requiring broad coali- to sustain. is dramatic. In the ’70s and ’80s, there tions to craft significant public policy History does not mysteriously al- was a huge center, with a substantial and to sell it to a public worried about ternate between one extreme—an share of both parties hewing closely short-term change. Norms reinforced empowered speaker—and the other— to it. Conservative Democrats, mostly this mindset: lawmakers would never decentralized control by committee Southern (we called them Boll Weevils campaign directly against their col- chairs. Instead, there are understand- before they became Blue Dogs), made leagues from other districts or states, able conditions under which the one up around 40 percent of the party in especially not on those colleagues’ turf. or the other is likely to prevail. And Congress, while liberal and moderate Campaign consultants and pollsters though we have experienced a kinder Republicans (called Gypsy Moths,) used to disappear after elections, but and gentler legislative politics from mainly from New England and the now they stick around as consultants, time to time, such times appear, alas, West Coast, made up a quarter or so of aids, and lobbyists, ever-present. to be but temporary resting places be- their party. Throw in one more factor: the tween the extremes of centralized and A regional realignment that began increasing competitiveness of both decentralized majority power. in the late 1960s triggered the polar- chambers. In the House, Democrats

20 BR MAY / JUN 2011 forum

had a stranglehold for 40 consecu- sional performance can only be mea- the larger, combative culture—rein- tive years during which Republicans sured collectively, and the result would forced by cable news, talk radio, and never held more than 192 seats. Since be collective punishment. Merit pay blogs—would obstruct their potential 1994 control of the House has been would also be one more disincentive effectiveness. I can only hope that the intensely competitive. Every election for non-millionaires considering a run lawmakers like Jim Cooper stay in now provides a plausible scenario for for office. Geographical fundraising Congress, at least providing role mod- a power shift, and sharp ideological limits would handicap non-wealthy els for their colleagues, and showing differences between the parties make candidates from poorer districts or voters that reasonable, thoughtful, de- the stakes immeasurably higher. sparsely populated states, especially in liberative legislators actually do exist. Two outcomes follow. First, law- the post–Citizens United world. makers from the other side of the I offer a few other suggestions. aisle become almost radioactive. To Change the congressional schedule work with them may give their side to three weeks on, one week off. Each protection against attack on a wedge month Congress would be in session issue, which in turn could mean a gain for three weeks, from 9 a.m. Monday John Samples in seats. Second, all members face through 5 p.m. Friday. This would Director of the Center for mounting pressure to raise money create opportunity for debate and Representative Government at the as part of the team effort. Members deliberation, and provide a powerful Cato Institute spend all their spare time raising incentive for members to move their money. Any chance for serious debate families to Washington, D.C. Couple or deliberation is brushed aside by the the schedule change with a gener- crushing imperative to raise funds. ous housing allowance, and build Newt Gingrich’s formula, as Cooper two large apartment buildings near rightly notes, ensures that lawmakers the Capitol. Rent the apartments (in- do not get to know each other, mak- cluding several with three or four ing demonization much easier. The bedrooms) at cost to lawmakers, and friction that comes with constant par- include both childcare facilities and a tisan warfare and ideological division common eating space to make them has alienated voters, who increasingly family friendly and to encourage so- support any candidate who claims not cializing. Ban fundraising in Washing- to be “like those politicians.” The result ton, D.C. when Congress is in session. is more ideologues and charlatans and Externally, adopt on a wider basis fewer institutionalists who know the the California system of open prima- Representative Jim Cooper value of compromise and the impor- ries to provide opportunities for a outlines a golden age of Congress dur- tance of order in the legislative pro- wider range of moderate candidates ing the speakership of Tip O’Neill. In cess. to win nominations and elections. those days, as Cooper would have it, What to do? Cooper is right that Even better, adopt a version of the members were cordial and debated changing the campaign-finance sys- Australian system of mandatory at- the public good. Partisanship, though tem and reforming redistricting would tendance at the polls. In Australia, present, was bounded. Newt Gingrich, help immensely. But both will be dif- failure to show up (and at least cast a that omnipotent demon, brought the ficult, and we are years away from any ballot for “none of the above”) results golden age to an end. real movement in these areas. in a fine of $15–20. With this modest But the past was not really so Unfortunately, Cooper’s proposals nudge, turnout hovers around 97 per- golden, and reform of Congress should for merit-based pay and fundraising cent. If American parties knew that be about the problems of the future, constrained to the legislator’s district their bases would turn out in equal not about a longing to restore mythical or state are unworkable. Congres- force, then current priorities—spend- bygone years. ing hundreds of millions to excite or Cooper complains about special frighten voters with harsh rhetoric interest politics. As former Represen- and wedge issues—would evaporate. tative and Office of Management and Candidates would focus on voters in Budget Director David Stockman wit- the middle, and the issues that con- nessed, Tip O’Neill and Jim Wright cern them—such as debt and deficits. “put the nation’s entire revenue sys- I have few illusions about the likeli- tem on the auction block” to stop Presi- hood of such reforms. Even if enacted, dent Reagan’s fiscal proposals in 1981.

BostonReview.NET maY / JUN 2011 BR 21 forum

At the time, Wright said of the Demo- Finally, Cooper complains about are virtually represented by the cur- crats’ alternative to Reagan’s budget, unfunded liabilities. But who created rent Congress and the voters who “Frankly, we’ll put anything in the bill those liabilities and hid them? The elect it. The British Parliament said the if it will buy votes.” The bill failed any- O’Neill-era Congress owns a fair mea- same thing to American colonists after way. sure of responsibility. Congress did 1763. The Americans laughed and yet Cooper also complains about cen- raise taxes and cut benefits for Social were not amused. tralization of power by Gingrich. But Security in 1983, but those changes What should be done? Current political scientists believe the trend to- hardly count as fundamental reforms, government accounting obscures the ward centralization in service of par- and, in any case, the changes origi- costs and benefits of public spend- tisanship began in 1977, when O’Neill nated with a commission, not with ing. We need honest budgeting that shoved through President Carter’s Congress. reveals, rather than hides, taxes and This fuller picture of Coo- public spending. At a minimum, the We need renewed per’s golden age does not current generation would know what federalism, so that imply that Newt Gingrich was being done to those who have no was a good speaker or that say in today’s policies. Accurate ac- government reflects congressional Republicans counting might foster some restraint the diversity of have a superior record in in taking advantage of the unborn. power. But it does mean We will also need reformed programs. Americans. that the past is not a model Privatization of entitlements, though for reform. beyond the topic of congressional re- energy legislation. The strength and I see three current and future prob- form, would also prevent current vot- power of the congressional leadership lems besetting our republic that might ers from taking advantage of future grew thereafter. Gringich continued be mitigated by reforms of Congress. taxpayers. O’Neill’s innovation. First, the problem of consent. Second, the problem of war. Article The pre-Gingrich era had other The colonies that would become the I of the Constitution grants Congress shortcomings, too. In 1989 a House United States did not fight for inde- the power to declare war. As legal investigation revealed Speaker Wright pendence from England under the scholar Michael Ramsey has shown, had violated ethics rules 116 times dur- banner, “No spending without repre- the original meaning of “declare war” ing the 1980s. Wright became the first sentation!” A lack of consent to taxa- included initiating war, as in Libya speaker to resign his office and was fol- tion forced the break. now. The president, in turn, retained lowed by the third-ranking Democrat, Today most Americans are unwill- a power to repel attacks on the nation. Tony Coelho, whose financial dealings ing to pay more taxes. Since spending Congress should limit by law the pres- were deemed ethically compromised. equals taxes sooner or later, Americans ident’s power to make war without Congressional Quarterly reported dur- are refusing to consent to more spend- congressional authorization or public ing this period: ing. Yet the same voters (and their debate. At the very least, the War Pow- elected officials) continue the spend- ers Act should be amended to force a Two senators were indicted on crimi- ing by borrowing, which implies taxes public debate about the use of force by nal charges, . . . . two of the House’s on future Americans. the president. former officers pleaded guilty to The gap between spending and crimes stemming from their service; Third, the problem of centraliza- and three former House members taxes is especially wide in entitle- tion. The United States has become were convicted and sentenced to ments. For example, the Trustees of more diverse, politically, culturally, prison. Social Security indicate that past and and otherwise in recent years. The current recipients of Social Security future is likely to bring less unum and Congressional elections became have received and will receive $17.4 more pluribus. A greater decentraliza- less and less competitive during Coo- trillion more in benefits than they tion of governance would help the per’s golden age. Fewer and fewer have paid to the system. This enor- nation adapt to its growing diversity: House incumbents lost elections; the mous sum does not appear in Con- people with differences could live un- electoral advantage of incumbency gress’ official budget, but the liability der governments that reflect their di- rose. The lower campaign spending is real. Current and future Americans versity. A changing nation could use a praised by Cooper was both a cause will have to make up the difference renewed federalism marked by more and result of incumbency advantage. through higher taxes or lower benefits. distinctive states. The higher campaign spending he now The Americans who will pay those American government is now laments fosters more electoral com- debts did not consent to those taxes. largely consolidated. A renewed fed- petition and more informed voters. We might say that future Americans eralism would require constitutional

22 BR MAY / JUN 2011 forum

amendments. Article V offers two roots of partisan polarization extend power through a strict seniority sys- paths to propose a constitutional far deeper. tem controlled the legislative agenda, amendment: through Congress di- Under the Gingrich’s leadership, and a “conservative coalition” of south- rectly or through a convention called Republicans adopted reforms that ern Democrats and Republicans often by Congress. In practice, as law pro- centralized party control at the ex- stymied the Democrats’ policy agenda. fessor Michael Rappaport has argued, pense of committee power. Gingrich By the early 1970s, frustrated liber- Article V gives Congress a veto over personally selected committee chairs, als and an influx of new Democratic amendments. Consequently only bypassing the most senior GOP com- members successfully pressed for re- amendments that enhance congres- mittee members on some key com- forms, giving the speaker much more sional or federal power have been mittees. Republicans set six-year term control over the legislative agenda proposed and ratified. The Constitu- limits for committee and subcommit- and members’ careers. Democrats re- tion could be amended to allow a su- tee chairs, sending a clear permajority of states to write, propose signal that party leaders, Every speaker since and ratify constitutional amendments. not committees, were in Gingrich has sought to The result might be a more balanced charge. Gingrich even re- and useful government for the nation. quired incoming Appropri- maximize the influence ations Committee members of party leaders. to sign a pledge of support for the Contract with America. When formed the seniority system, institut- committees drafted legislation that ing an automatic, secret vote on all did not satisfy party leaders, Gingrich committee chairs by the Democratic circumvented them by appointing Caucus. In 1975 Democrats ousted Kathryn Pearson special party task forces to craft legis- three committee chairs, and party loy- Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota lation instead. These changes further alty increased among those who kept reduced the power of Congress’s most their posts. Democrats empowered effective tool to solve policy problems: the leadership-controlled Steering and subject expertise developed through a Policy Committee to make committee strong committee system. assignments. The speaker was autho- Gingrich’s consolidation of power rized to select chair and Democratic succeeded for several reasons: Demo- members of the House Rules Commit- crats had already adopted reforms tee, rendering the Committee a tool of that empowered party leaders at the the leadership. With a 9-4 supermajor- expense of committee chairs; rank- ity of handpicked, loyal Democrats, and-file Republicans were grateful to the Rules Committee could no longer Gingrich for their unexpected major- thwart the leadership’s agenda. The ity status; narrow margins between Speaker was also given the power to the parties signaled ongoing battles refer legislation to more than one com- for electoral and policy majorities; mittee, to set time limits on committee Representative Jim Cooper’s and, perhaps most important, Repub- consideration, and to expedite the con- thoughtful critique of the contempo- licans largely agreed with one another sideration of legislation in committee rary U.S. Congress highlights impor- on policy issues and disagreed with and on the House floor. tant shortcomings in policy, procedure, most Democrats, reflecting their in- Despite these tools made available and politics. And it underscores sig- creasingly polarized constituencies. to him, Speaker Tip O’Neill worked nificant changes in Congress over the Party leaders acquired their most across party lines and did not abuse past four decades: increasing partisan significant tools under the Demo- his prerogatives, as Cooper details. polarization and the concomitant in- cratic reforms of the early 1970s, when However, when Jim Wright succeeded crease in the power of party leaders Democrats took power away from O’Neill as speaker in 1987, the context in the House. Party leaders in today’s committees and empowered party was ripe for a powerful speaker to House wield more power over the leg- leaders and the Democratic Caucus. challenge President Reagan. Wright islative agenda and over the careers of From the late 1930s to the late 1960s, articulated a partisan legislative rank-and-file members than they have Democrats had held the majority al- agenda, expanded leaders’ powers, and in more than a hundred years. most continuously, but the party’s used procedural maneuvers to block Cooper pins much blame on for- leaders were relatively weak. Strong Republican-supported amendments. mer Speaker Newt Gingrich, but the committee chairs who maintained The rise of Democratic leaders’ power

BostonReview.NET maY / JUN 2011 BR 23 forum

led to a decline in Republican influ- represent her constituents is affected vantages. ence. Wright’s use—or, in the view by leaderships’ goals. Representative Cooper spends a of Republicans, abuse—of partisan Narrow margins and fierce partisan good deal of time applauding the Con- tactics fueled Republicans’ frustration competition are likely to persist well gress under Speaker O’Neal’s leader- and pursuit of ethics charges against into the future, suggesting that leaders ship. While not perfect, the Congress Wright, eventually leading to his resig- of both parties will continue to reward of the 1970s and 1980s sought, accord- nation. Wright’s Democratic successor, loyalty in both voting and fundraising. ing to Representative Cooper, to pur- Speaker Tom Foley, did not push the Partisan polarization in the House will sue good public policy and did so in limits as Wright had, but partisan pol- continue unless more members who a reasonably civil fashion. As Cooper icy battles continued under his leader- value their constituents and the repu- notes, “members disagreed without ship. tation of Congress above the reputa- being disagreeable.” The House sought Every speaker since Gingrich has tion of their party stand up to protest. to make “policy, not partisan mischief.” continued to innovate to maximize This appealing state of affairs, as Coo- the influence of party leaders at the per sees it, started to change in the expense of the committee system 1990s with the rise of Newt Gingrich. and members’ autonomy. During the Partisanship became the driver of speakership of Dennis Hastert, the Congress, and good public policy took party-led Steering Committee priori- a back seat to politics. (It’s worth not- John G. Geer tized loyalty demonstrated by mem- ing that this new pattern in Congress Distinguished Professor of Political bers’ votes and fundraising efforts as Science at Vanderbilt University is not a Republican thing. The Demo- criteria in filling vacant committee crats followed suit when they took chairs, sometimes passing over less control back in 2007.) loyal members with greater committee Cooper’s argument reflects the seniority. And, as Cooper notes, when conventional wisdom that polariza- Speaker Nancy Pelosi took the gavel tion has detrimental effects on the po- after twelve years of GOP control, she litical system. A highly polarized Con- benefited from Republicans’ expan- gress features more disagreements on sion of leadership power. Even with policy, and those disagreements often an influx of Democrats from swing become fierce. This should come as districts in 2006 and 2008, Democrats no surprise: with larger differences were more unified under Pelosi’s lead- between the parties, the stakes are ership than ever before, not only vot- higher. When one side wins, it can ing together at record levels, but rais- push policy in ways that are antitheti- ing more money for the party and for cal to the other side’s views. Part of the one another, too. Let me note at the start that Jim reason the Tea Party has complained Parties have become very impor- Cooper not only represents my home so loudly is that from its position on tant to members’ careers. My research state of Tennessee, but I count him the ideological spectrum, President has shown that party leaders use their as a friend. He is without a doubt a Obama and the Democrats are pur- expanding arsenal of tools to exert thoughtful student of Congress. While suing unfathomable policies. This discipline in pursuit of policy control I do not agree with everything in his “policy gap,” so to speak, is the fuel and to reward rank-and-file members article, I find much of it on target and for these complaints, protests, and, for their loyalty by preferentially de- all of it worthwhile. But termining whose legislation is con- I want to add a new and Polarization has some sidered on the House floor, allocating slightly unorthodox per- real upsides. campaign resources, and making com- spective on the polariza- mittee appointments. In this process tion of the parties in Congress and in frankly, nastiness. of assessing loyalty and assigning re- the country. It seems clear to me that Surely this polarization comes with wards, party leaders may forgo oppor- many of the concerns Cooper raises costs. It is, for example, unfortunate tunities to help their most electorally can be tied to the real ideological dif- that politicians on both sides of the vulnerable members, those who rep- ferences between the parties on issues aisle so often rely on overheated rheto- resent districts where the party’s poli- and that these differences have been ric. But we should not overstate these cies are least popular and therefore growing over the last few decades. problems, nor should we be overly are most difficult for those members Most observers see problems with romantic about the past. There were to support. Thus, a member’s ability to these developments; I see some ad- many critics of Speaker O’Neil and

24 BR MAY / JUN 2011 forum

Representative Michel. Neither stuck accountability and, therefore, demo- problems facing the United States. to his principles; both, according to cratic rule. Our real national debt, including un- critics, engaged in compromise rather I am not arguing that we now have funded liabilities, is much higher than than leadership. This very complaint a responsible party system, and that, $15 trillion. Representative Cooper bolstered Newt Gingrich. Each era therefore, the cause of democracy is rightly suggests that the major entitle- confronts tough problems, and our po- being advanced by polarization. My ment programs cannot be sacrosanct litical system must find a way to solve goal is far more modest. I simply want if we are to address our pressing finan- them, or at least ease them. to encourage readers not to jump too cial challenges and that the employer Despite all the worry, polarization quickly on the anti-polarization band- health-care deduction and the home- has some real upsides—not enough, wagon. Parties that have strong differ- mortgage deduction, if rescinded, perhaps, to make it a desirable state ences offer the country some real and would raise a good deal of money. of affairs, but enough to give us pause tangible benefits. It may be that these However, when he turns to the analy- before we start clamoring for a return benefits do not outweigh the costs ses of what went wrong and how to to the 1980s. The most important ad- Cooper describes, but we need to think get Congress to work productively, I vantage of polarization may be that through all angles of this problem be- am less convinced. the parties now offer the public clear fore reaching a firm conclusion. Representative Cooper argues that choices. Remember when George Wal- We desperately need sober assess- Congress refuses to use the right tools, lace contended there was “not a dime’s ments of politics by keen observers focusing instead on crafting policy worth of difference” between the par- such as the esteemed representative that sounds good rather than policy ties? In the 1960s and ’70s, the parties from the Volunteer state. Even though that works well. Explaining this fail- were ideologically much more similar I disagree with some of his ideas, I’ve ure, Cooper describes an earlier era than they are now. At the time, we had tried—as I hope others will—to do when Congress worked better. In the liberal Republicans and conservative that “without being disagreeable.” De- 1980s, members were supposed to Democrats. Politics, as a result, was mocracy is often about disagreement “vote their conscience and their dis- less interesting and engaging to the and working toward solutions based trict,” and Tip O’Neill’s House was in- public. Just consider that turnout in on competing ideas. Congressman tent on making policy. The staff of the American elections has been on the Cooper understands that central point Democratic Study Group (DSG) wrote increase over the last two decades. In of democracy, and I hope others will authoritative papers on policy, read addition, the public has been more join him in this important conversa- and trusted by both parties. Members interested in the last two presidential tion. worked in Washington, D.C. four to campaigns than any campaign since five days a week and got along across 1952. These campaigns were tough, party lines. Thus, members knew and competitive, and very negative. Yet the respected each other. They used “king public responded, as it has to today’s of the hill” rules to allow choice over highly differentiated parties in notice- policies. able and important ways. In Cooper’s telling, the arrival David W. Brady The position that polarization will of the Republican Congress in 1994 Deputy Director of the Hoover benefit the public is not new. It is a Institution changed things. Newt Gingrich cen- long-standing intellectual tradition in tralized power, waged total war on American political science, albeit one President Clinton, and, rather than that used to employ different termi- promote the House, sought Repub- nology. Rather than speaking of the lican wins on every issue. In short, benefits of “polarization,” scholars in “compromise became a dirty word.” the 1950s such as E.E. Schnattschnei- In addition, Gingrich ordered Repub- der advocated “party responsibility,” licans not to move their families to which, by its nature, requires polar- Washington, D.C., thus making the ization: polarized parties make it pos- Tuesday–Thursday Club dominant sible for the public to hold each party and ensuring that members would not accountable for its actions. When the know each other. King-of-the-hill vot- parties are ideologically similar, the ing was ended, and the majority of the public has trouble identifying who majority party were victorious—thus was responsible for failing to solve polarization. Finally, campaign expen- problems or who should get the credit In general, I agree with Repre- ditures increased dramatically, making for success. This situation undermines sentative Cooper’s analysis of the members more dependent on special

BostonReview.NET maY / JUN 2011 BR 25 forum

interests. Republican Speaker Hastert bers do spend more and more time tially fair. Building that majority and continued these practices, as could be campaigning and fundraising. electing it will generate the conditions expected. The real question, then: suppose necessary for real change. When the Democrats returned, few we could go back to the O’Neill House, could remember the O’Neill era. Thus, obviating the need to redo redistrict- they did not follow to its model. Ap- ing and/or pay members of Congress parently, this was also due in part to according to productivity. (It is clear the fact that “FOX and MSNBC had that H.R.419 won’t pass, nor ever will certainly inflamed partisanship [and] merit pay.) Would there be a policy Nick Nyhart social media had popularized non-fact- solution to the kinds of problems we President and CEO of Public based reality.” now face? The answer is yes, but not Campaign because members knew Leaders need to build each other and the DSG did majorities supporting good policy analysis, but because the Democrats had their views, not tinker a large majority and the Re- with rules. publicans were a nearly per- manent minority, control- Given this reading of history, Rep- ling the presidency and the Congress resentative Cooper’s solution is three- at the same time for only two of the fold, and designed to keep members previous 64 years. The hypothetical true to their constituents and purpose: O’Neilll Congress would support tax first, to pass H.R.419, the Redistrict- increases over spending cuts, and, if ing Transparency Act of 2011, which it made cuts, would focus on defense would reduce gerrymandering; sec- rather than social security. That, how- ond, to reverse through new legisla- ever, is not the Congress we now have, Representative Jim Cooper tion the Supreme Court’s Citizens nor would the American public elect catalogs the many dysfunctions of our United decision; and third, to institute such a Congress. current Congress and correctly empha- differential pay for members of Con- Today’s electorate, on the very is- sizes the decades of political history gress based on an unspecified measure sues raised by Representative Cooper, that have led us to this point. There is of performance. is of two minds: conservatives cite no single politician or party that has I shall pursue two arguments polls showing the majorities favor- created the problem, which suggests against these proposed solutions, one ing cuts, and liberals cite polls show- that the solutions are systemic as well. factual and one practical. First, Coo- ing that Americans do not want to cut Cooper rightly notes that Congress per’s description of the O’Neill House entitlement programs. The American is “willfully blind to our nation’s worst is somewhat idyllic. The beginning public wants both. It is the job of polit- problems.” While he focuses on the of polarization can be dated to the ical leadership to build majorities for national debt, the same could be said O’Neill era, and the king-of-the-hill vot- their policy preferences. Such leader- of health-care costs, energy, a declin- ing procedures were structured so that ship entails converting contradictory ing education system, and the eco- the speaker’s bill was voted on last, sentiments into winning campaigns nomic security of most Americans. making it policy. Likewise, the Tues- and policy solutions. The abolitionist This hasn’t always been true. Over the day–Thursday Club and campaign movement, on its own, could never years Congress has been able to leg- spending were on the rise well be- have become a majority party; Lincoln islate grand-scale programs that have fore 1994. There was no sudden shift. and his fellow leaders over time forged moved our country forward. From Nevertheless, the House is at present free soil, free labor, free men, into a Social Security to the G.I. Bill, from a Tuesday–Thursday Club, and mem- new majority with policy solutions. building our nation’s highway system Solving the problems so clearly set to passing the Civil Rights Act, the out by Representative Cooper will not federal legislative process has been in- be achieved by tinkering with House fluential, contributing significantly to and Senate rules and norms. Rather, economic growth and shared prosper- the solution is for leaders to build ma- ity. jorities for their views, which in this Cooper is also correct that in to- case entails constraining expenditures day’s Washington, politics comes in a way that the public sees as essen- before policy and, as he observes, we

26 BR MAY / JUN 2011 forum

“may be losing our capacity for self- Congress, in 1983–84, the Democratic entirely on small donations supple- renewal.” The election system now Congressional Campaign Committee mented by public funds, enough to includes procedures through which raised $10.4 million. That figure for win a typical House race. Candidates politicians in almost all states pick 2010 was $163.9 million, a better than would qualify for the funds by rais- their voters, rather than the reverse. A fifteen-fold increase. The average cost ing a large number of contributions politicized redistricting process is just of winning an individual House seat of a hundred dollars or less from their one part of this problem. We are also has gone from $263,000 to more than home states. Candidates who want witnessing a national assault on vot- $1.4 million in that time. to spend more money on their cam- ing rights by conservatives in nearly The demand for campaign cash paigns could raise additional small do- 30 state legislatures, which would increases our elected officials’ depen- nations which would then be matched reduce the number of low-income dence on a relative handful of sources by further public money at a four- or for big checks, siphons time five-to-one ratio. This program would In March, amid away from careful legis- allow a publically funded candidate to joblessness, a new war, lating and leaves out the compete against a privately funded op- most important people of ponent or against the increased inde- and a budget crisis, all, ostensibly, in a democ- pendent expenditures encouraged by members of Congress racy: the voters. The top the Supreme Court’s Citizens United donors of federal political decision. hosted more than 300 D.C. money are drawn from the This wouldn’t cure Congress of all fundraisers. financial sector and other the ills Cooper identifies, but making leading business interests the voters back home more important people, students, seniors, and ethnic (labor-union contributions, while im- in the political process and eliminat- minorities likely to vote. Inside Con- portant, are overshadowed by busi- ing the direct reliance of lawmakers gress, leadership positions now accrue ness interests by a factor of fourteen on wealthy vested interests would to those who are focused on winning to one). Four of every five dollars come establish a sound foundation for ad- elections. Fundraising skill is more from outside a member’s district. Coo- ditional reforms. prized in Congress than the ability to per observes that two of his colleagues build diverse legislative coalitions and missed their swearing-in because generate successful public policy. they were attending a fundraiser. In The increasing politicization of March, with a government shutdown the entire process means cold hard looming, a new war underway, and 15 cash has become more important million people still unemployed, mem- David E. Price across the board, as successful cam- bers of Congress, according to the Sun- U.S. Representative from North paigning requires more money than light Foundation’s PoliticalPartyTime. Carolina’s Fourth District ever before. Last year, the Republi- org, hosted more than 300 Washing- can State Leadership Committee and ton, D.C. fundraisers—with the elec- Democratic Legislative Campaign tion still nineteen months away. Every Committee spent nearly $41 million hour spent fundraising is an hour not on state-legislative elections, up from spent getting to know fellow mem- less than $18 million six years earlier. bers, studying up on the issues, and The money was more important than meeting with constituents. usual as political control of the cur- A first step toward undoing Con- rent state legislatures leads to greater gressional dysfunction is to attack authority over the drawing of new directly the political money problem, district lines for Congress in 2012 as striking first at each member’s de- well as for state offices. The leading pendence on special interests. Coo- funder of these Committees’ efforts in per has it right when he suggests that each of the past four elections cycles we might be better off if lawmakers has been the U.S. Chamber Commerce, took money only from people back Few members of Congress are as which contributed a total of $11 mil- home. He is a cosponsor of legislation well equipped as Jim Cooper, intel- lion. The formal fundraising arms of that would do just that, the recently lectually and temperamentally, to re- the House Democratic and Republi- introduced Fair Elections Now Act flect objectively on the institution’s can caucuses have also grown tremen- (H.R.1404). The measure would of- strengths and weaknesses. Rather dously. When Cooper first served in fer candidates the option of running than commenting on each of his prop-

BostonReview.NET maY / JUN 2011 BR 27 forum

ositions, I will take a few steps back, years. In 1994 Gingrich rode a fierce identifying three fundamental areas anti-institutional critique to victory of congressional performance. Each is and proceeded to concentrate power closely related to the strength and ef- in the speaker’s office to a degree fectiveness of the institution, and each not seen in almost a century. Upon is rendered more challenging when succeeding Gingrich in 1999, Dennis Congress and the country are sharply Hastert professed his desire to return polarized. Like Cooper, I will concen- to the “regular order.” But committees trate mainly but not exclusively on the remained under tight constraints, and informed it. It is fallacious, for exam- House. with the advent of unified Republican ple, to regard leadership strength and First, in order to legislate coher- control of government under Presi- committee vitality in zero-sum terms. dent George W. Bush, House Effective party and committee leader- Opposition to earmarks leadership assumed an even ship can be mutually reinforcing, pro- subordinates harder edge through tactics ducing a better legislative product and designed to eliminate de- a smoother route to passage. A case Congressional power to pendence on—or even par- in point is the comprehensive finan- partisan advantage. ticipation by—Democrats, cial services–regulatory reform bill while keeping the narrow brought to the floor by the Democratic ently, knowledgeably, and with legiti- Republican majority in line. leadership in 2009 under permissive macy, House leadership must strike When Democrats returned to rules of debate. The bill, reported by critical balances between centraliza- power in 2007, they avoided the worst the Financial Services Committee un- tion and decentralization and between abuses, such as the three-hour roll-call der Barney Frank’s leadership, was partisan discipline and the accommo- vote on Medicare prescription drugs the result of months of hearings and dation of competing forces. Cooper is in 2003—which gave Republican lead- markups that had involved most com- less critical than he might be of the era ers time to sway votes on the bill—or mittee members. While that was not when committees were more autono- evicting opposition members from sufficient to attract Republican votes mous and powerful. Some committees committee rooms. The new Demo- in the sharply divided House, it pro- were indeed great sources of initiative cratic leadership also gave wider berth duced a better designed and more le- and expertise, harnessing the ener- to committee operations. But floor gitimate product in the end. gies and talents of disparate members proceedings were still highly regi- Second, Congress must safeguard effectively. However, coming to the mented, and conference committees its constitutional prerogatives and House a few years after Cooper, I re- remained a shadow of their former its institutional role in relation to the member committees too often report- selves. The challenge continues now, executive. One of the most important ing bills that divided the Democratic as the Republicans resume leadership. arenas in which institutional powers Caucus and had to be amended on the The new majority touted the four days are played out, and the one with which fly as the whip counts came in. Even of debate (February 15–18) on the con- I am most familiar, is appropriations. with an assertive Speaker such as Jim tinuing resolution to fund government The appropriations committees em- Wright, committees, at a minimum, operations for the balance of 2011 as a body the constitutional “power of represented competing power centers sign of new openness and inclusion. the purse” and represent an essential and often fell short when a unifying But the procedure avoided commit- instrument for holding the executive agenda or message was needed. A cor- tee consideration completely, and the branch accountable and for exercis- rective was required. It is telling that rules governing the debate forbade ing full partnership in the setting of when Democrats returned to power any amendments that would have se- national priorities. This institutional after the years of Republican control riously altered the spending priorities role is, or should be, distinct from jock- (1995–2006), few if any members in the leadership’s bill. eying for partisan advantage within called for a return to the previous de- Centralized control under both par- Congress. It also helps explain the re- gree of decentralization. ties has reflected the political reality of strained partisanship that has histori- That is not to say that the Gingrich- heightened partisanship—a polarized, cally characterized committee opera- Hastert era offers a model worthy of closely divided House, with each side tions: appropriations members have emulation. The ascent of Newt Gin- inclined to take full advantage of any a common responsibility to hold the grich to Republican leadership in the opening provided by the other. But executive branch accountable, regard- early 1990s contributed more to the there is still room to adjust partisan less of which party is in control in the increasing polarization of the House practice, and good reason to ques- White House or Congress. than any other event of the past thirty tion the assumptions that have often The partisan divisions and tactics

28 BR MAY / JUN 2011 forum

of the full House are seeping into ap- opportunity to embarrass the Obama upward adjustment of the administra- propriations. On most appropriations administration and put vulnerable tion’s proposed funding levels for pub- subcommittees, the initial formulation Democrats on the spot. With some dif- lic works and military construction of bills continues to be relatively coop- ficulty, we contained Democratic de- projects—in spending bills. It should erative across party lines. This may fections. Then the storm clouds lifted come as no surprise that Democratic change in the 112th Congress, with and congratulations were exchanged and Republican presidents alike favor an unprecedented disparity between across the aisle for what in reality had measures such as the line-item veto or the parties in their spending priorities been a bipartisan bill all along. But earmark bans that reduce congressio- and budget strategies. Until now, how- the experience laid bare the unsteady nal funding discretion. But for mem- ever, partisan divisions have mainly equilibrium between the norms but- bers of Congress to acquiesce is to emerged in full committee markups tressing the institutional role of appro- value short-term rhetorical advantage and, especially, on the floor. priations and the struggle This hit me with full force as I for partisan advantage, and Strong leadership and managed the Homeland Security ap- there could be little doubt committees can be propriations bill on the House floor in in which direction the bal- 2007, my first year as subcommittee ance was tipping. mutually reinforcing, chairman. A band of some three dozen Such tactics can render producing better bills members—mostly younger, mostly appropriations markups from the right-leaning Republican and floor debates indistin- and an easier route to Study Committee—took full advan- guishable from the partisan passage. tage (and then some) of the open rule fights characteristic of more under which appropriations bills are typically controversial legislation. Get- over Congress’ constitutional preroga- traditionally debated, offering trivial ting appropriations bills through the tives and the responsible assertion of and pro forma amendments in succes- process in a timely fashion and gain- legislative powers. sion, each providing the opportunity ing bipartisan support has become Finally, Congress must recover for a repetitive string of five-minute more difficult. In the election years of and maintain a bipartisan as well as a speeches. The most prominent theme 2008 and 2010, the Democratic lead- partisan capacity. The organizational of the protests, to the extent there ership’s response to the increasingly strength and solidarity that congres- was one, was earmarks, but the main contentious appropriations battles sional parties have developed since intent seemed to be merely to throw was to pull the bills back from full the 1970s, particularly in the House, the House into disarray. We finally committee and floor consideration, have enhanced performance in many brought the debate to a conclusion sparing vulnerable Democrats “gotcha” ways by overcoming fragmentation after 27 hours (compared to nine the votes destined for campaign ads. The and enabling the majority to rule. I year before). Many of the subsequent leadership reckoned that even if the take considerable pride in periods of appropriations bills were subjected to bills made it through the House, they extraordinary partisan achievement similar tactics; it took 169 hours to de- would likely face Senate filibusters or, such as 1993–94 and 2009–10. But I bate them, compared to 101 hours the in 2008, a presidential veto. Democrats am also a veteran of the budget battles year before. then attempted to pass omnibus bills of the 1990s, which leads me to react Another kind of partisan dis- after the elections, which, given the with alarm to two aspects of our cur- ruption greeted my bill in 2009, as election outcomes, succeeded in 2008 rent budget situation. First, our fiscal amendments to prohibit the transfer and failed in 2010. I was critical of challenges, including the future of our of Guantánamo Bay detainees to U.S. such risk-aversion, especially in 2010. entitlement programs and the need soil were offered in full committee It revealed an increasing tendency in to raise revenues commensurate with and on the floor. The provisions were both parties to subordinate the appro- necessary expenditures, are even more not germane to the bill but were being priations process to partisan politics. difficult than those Congress faced in pushed by Republican leaders at every The Republican attempt to stigma- the ’90s. And second, we have mostly tize congressionally directed appro- lost our capacity to take these chal- priations, or earmarks, is part of this lenges on in the bipartisan fashion larger pattern of subordination. With that history teaches us is almost al- scattered abuses widely publicized ways necessary. Reaching agreement and the budgetary impact absurdly was extraordinarily difficult in the exaggerated, the House Republican ’90s, and it seems almost inconceiv- Conference has prohibited the identi- able now. fying of discrete projects—or even the Bipartisan accommodation has its

BostonReview.NET maY / JUN 2011 BR 29 forum

pitfalls; it can render legislation mud- action on these matters of grave na- Alan Greenspan and Larry Summers dled or ineffective, particularly when tional import may well require extra- to Warren Buffett and Charles Schwab, the gaps being bridged are deep and congressional mechanisms, as it has in that the stock market was a safe and wide. But bipartisan capacity can also the past, but it will also require Con- smart place to put our money. Media be a source of strength, as it has been gress to recover and repair its capacity commentators offered middle-class for committees such as Transportation to transcend partisan divisions. Americans “common-sense” advice: and Infrastructure, Armed Services, saving and investing would yield a Agriculture, and Appropriations. But comfortable retirement. So, at least even on these, and certainly on most for Americans with money to invest, other, committees, partisan divisions the message that Social Security was have deepened in recent years. In going bankrupt was not very scary. some instances, more coherent legisla- (Cooper is careful not to describe So- Andrew Gelman tion has resulted, more consistent with cial Security as bankrupt; rather he Professor of Statistics and Political a given political ideology. But the route Science at Columbia University says that the totality of government to final passage has become more dif- commitments—including ever-rising ficult, as the languishing of numerous medical costs—is unaffordable.) congressional reauthorizations year Assurances of the soundness of after year suggests. the market did not stop even after These effects are greatly exacer- the 2008 market crash. In 2010 two bated in the case of fiscal policies, Yale professors published a book rec- which require political leaders to face ommending that young adults from unpleasant realities and take on ad- affluent families go into debt to buy versity. The bipartisan budget agree- stocks and then hold them for many ment of 1990 and the comprehensive years to prepare for retirement. James budget bill of 1993, which was enacted Glassman and Kevin Hassett’s 1999 with Democratic heavy lifting alone, book, Dow 36,000, has been discred- helped create the roaring economy ited since the early 2000s, but that of the 1990s and a federal budget hasn’t stopped Glassman, who is cur- that was not only balanced but gen- The story of Congress’s demise, as rently hosting a regular show on PBS, erated sizable surpluses. The George Representative Cooper tells it, has an or Hassett, a columnist for Bloomberg W. Bush administration then aban- economic and a political component. News. Americans have been getting doned pay-as-you-go and other budget The economic component describes a false messages of security from all di- constraints, and by the time the great government that has promised more rections, and the senders of these mes- recession of 2007 came around, the than it can spend; the political one sages remain active participants in our country found itself in a position of blames partisanship and an inordinate public discourse. Retirement riches dangerous fiscal weakness. focus on fund-raising at the We must now find our way back by expense of problem solving. bringing the economy to full strength On the economic side, I Thanks to false (the best cure for deficits and much agree with Cooper that Con- messages of financial else) with the help of targeted coun- gress must act more intelli- tercyclical investments, while chart- gently regarding insurance, security, we’ve grown ing a steady long-term course to fiscal tax credits, and the rest. comfortable with debt. balance. Fixation on partisan talking Cooper’s call for reform, points—no tax increases, cuts limited however, goes against a larger set of so- from compound interest are as much to domestic discretionary spending, cietal expectations that encourage us of an unfunded obligation as any gov- no entitlement changes—is deceptive to ignore debt, thereby making it less ernment program. and counterproductive. The National likely that we will heed his warnings. We’ve also been told for years that Commission on Fiscal Responsibil- As pensions and health plans— consumption is our patriotic duty, and ity and Reform, chaired by Erskine presented as unbreakable guaran- that the best investment is buying a Bowles and Alan Simpson, correctly tees—began to bust budgets, a paral- large house in an expensive neighbor- highlighted the need for a compre- lel breakdown of promises occurred hood (or, if you have a bit less money, a hensive approach and an all-hands-on- in the financial sector. Until about small house in a not-so-great neighbor- deck mentality, whatever one might three years ago, we were assured by hood), which will appreciate and allow think of its specific proposals. Positive our economic authority figures, from you to take the next step on the ladder.

30 BR MAY / JUN 2011 forum

Another unfunded obligation. the success of presidential candidates foreign aid, public broadcasting, and Ever since we were children we is largely determined by the economic the National Endowment for the Arts were taught the magic of compound conditions of the moment. When would be relatively easy, but won’t get interest, but our expectations have there is robust improvement from us far. It’s hard to imagine a popular compounded ever faster in a culture year three to year four of a president’s push to compensate members based in which “millionaire” has been re- term, his party generally wins reelec- on their successes in cutting Social Se- placed by “billionaire.” In one gen- tion; otherwise it is in bad shape. This curity, Medicare, or veterans’ benefits. eration prices have increased by a electoral pattern creates all sorts of factor of five, and median incomes perverse incentives: the president’s have increased by about the same party is motivated to push the econ- amount, while the standard for riches omy down in the middle of the term has increased a thousand-fold. In this so that it will spring back in time for broader context, the challenges to get- reelection; the other party does best Stephen Ansolabehere ting Congress to act more responsibly by doing nothing. These incentives Professor of Government at Harvard on economic issues are far greater are even stronger if they align with the University than Cooper suggests. party’s economic views: in Obama’s On the political side, Cooper’s dis- third year, the Democrats favor fur- taste for extreme partisanship and ther stimulus while the Republicans the state of electoral politics is under- favor lower spending and tax cuts. standable. Given that the Republican But even if we stick to the problem of Congress of the George W. Bush period partisanship, Cooper’s proposals alone could not cut the budget or reform the are unlikely to work. He recommends unfunded obligations, making prog- open disclosure of redistricting plans ress now with a divided government and open primaries as ways of reduc- is hard to imagine. ing partisanship. Evidence, however, Cooper’s solution is a return to suggests that neither closed primaries the supposed pragmatism of the Tip nor gerrymandering are major factors O’Neill Congress of the 1980s. But in polarization: elections tend to be I question his assessment of those more competitive after any redistrict- years. Did Congress’s decisions in the ing year. I support Cooper’s proposed The diagnosis Representative 1980s to cut taxes and raise spend- reforms—I like the message they Cooper provides for the current state ing make today’s $50 trillion worth send about political priorities, and of dysfunction in Washington, D.C. is of unfunded obligations inevitable? they seem like a step in the right di- an interesting one. And he proposes a And why didn’t the issue of unfunded rection—but I don’t see them having provocative cure. obligations arise during the discus- much effect on their own. The symptom: declining political sion of the budget surplus at the end Finally, Cooper discusses cam- responsiveness and increased partisan of the 1990s? Can shortfalls today all paign financing and proposes paying strife, especially in Congress. be explained by the unexpected rise Congress for results. Some political The cause: poor political mechan- in health-care costs, the Bush tax cuts, scientists are skeptical about claims ics. and the recession? Partisanship is not of the strong influence of campaign The malady: deficits. the only problem. contributions, but I am inclined to The cure: merit pay for representa- Another factor may be the tight re- agree with Cooper that it cannot be a tives. lationship between presidential elec- good thing for members of Congress Parties and partisanship are as- tions and short-term changes in the to be spending so much of their time cendant in Washington. They assert economy. Years of effective research and effort raising money, nor can it be themselves in ways that generate hard have shown political scientists that good to have millions of anonymous feelings among politicians and deep dollars dumped into campaigns. On divisions among voters. Today ap- merit pay, Cooper asks, “What if Con- proval ratings of both Congress as a gress were paid on commission to cut whole and of individual members are spending, or to repeal obsolete laws?” low and continue to slide. The challenge is that spending cuts Cooper has put his finger on an es- typically are attractive only to the ex- sential dynamic driving the political tent that they’re directed at someone rancor in American politics. As parties else. Cutting perennial targets such as grow stronger, there is less opportu-

BostonReview.NET maY / JUN 2011 BR 31 forum

nity for members to legislate accord- was the bogeyman of the 1970s and to the precincts. ing to the nuances of their districts. ’80s, when groups such as the National The reformers got their way thanks Members feel compelled to vote much Conservative Political Action Commit- to the Federal Election Commission’s more strictly with their party than at tee and the National Rifle Association soft-money rules (instituted in 1979) any time since the 1940s. In this con- used independent spending to target and the rise of the Democratic Con- text it becomes easier for voters to cast liberal politicians. Incumbents have gressional Campaign Committee, the a party vote, but more difficult to find huge funding advantages now, but not National Republican Campaign Com- a legislator or idea that does not fit much greater than the advantages en- mittee, and other party funding outfits squarely in the ideological mold set by joyed by incumbents in the 1970s and capable of leveraging campaign cash the parties. ’80s. to bring about party discipline in Con- Why has this state of affairs One might have also rounded up gress. Congressional reforms in 1974 some of the other usual weakened the authority of the speaker, Americans once yearned suspects: primaries, unions, but quickly gave rise to the call for a re- for strong, disciplined corporations, lobbyists, turn to greater centralization of power. voter ignorance, globaliza- And it was the Democrats, especially parties. But the results tion, divided government, Speaker Jim Wright, who led the way. are not what we political polling, etc. These Redistricting marginalized liberal Re- are the kids who hang out publicans in the North and conserva- expected. on the corner waiting for tive Democrats in the South, and the trouble. But they are hard to “big sort” into programmatically lib- emerged over the past four decades? convict. They have always been there, eral Democrats and programmatically Cooper focuses on two features though the problems have ebbed and conservative Republicans was under- of the mechanics of politics: money flowed. way. and redistricting. Both are certainly The differences now lie in the par- What gives me most pause about the bane of every politician. Raising ties. And this conclusion leads to a the recent history of Congress is that money is not why legislators ran for deeper question: is this Congress’s disciplined parties could not keep at office, and redistricting shuffles the problem? I suspect it isn’t, and the bay the deeper problem Cooper iden- political deck every decade in a way recent history of the parties and party tifies—deficits. The Clinton White that raises the prospect of a premature reform reveals why. House and the Republican-controlled departure from the House. The late David Broder famously Congress in the 1990s—which typi- However, neither is, on its face, a lamented in his 1972 book The Party’s fied Cooper’s polarized Washing- compelling explanation for the pres- Over that the parties were too weak to ton—managed to erase the deficit ent problems. Redistricting only af- exert any control on a Congress that for the first time since the 1960s. But fects the House of Representatives; put special and local interests before unified control of Congress and the it does not apply to the Senate or to national interests. Americans loved presidency in the 2000s, first under the presidency. Yet Cooper’s argument their members of Congress but dis- the Republicans and then under the reflects ills of the whole political sys- liked Congress itself. Political scientist Democrats, has produced debt beyond tem—it applies to the Senate and to Morris Fiorina called this the curse of anything experienced since World presidents from Reagan to Obama. “individual responsiveness.” Legisla- War II. Money is a more complicated issue, tors were exceptionally good at solving In the 2000s the United States fi- but judging by the rhetoric of old, the constituents’ problems and producing nally achieved the strong, disciplined problem hasn’t really changed in 50 pork-barrel projects for their districts, parties yearned for by an earlier gen- years. Cooper’s critique echoes Lyndon but those actions came at the expense eration. But the results were not as de- Johnson’s 1968 call for passage of what of the collective interests of the coun- sired. Under the thumb of strong party later became the Federal Election Cam- try. As a result Congress repeatedly leadership and discipline, Congress paign Act. And independent spending created inefficient and broken legisla- has produced deficits as large in real tion and a seemingly unstoppable defi- terms as the deficits produced in the cit. era of individual responsiveness. En- Strong political parties were seen acting collectively responsible public as the solution to Congress’s apparent policy—that is, without deficits—only lack of interest in the collective good. seemed possible with the gridlock and Reformers called for greater discipline partisan sparring of the Gingrich-Clin- in Congress and vigorous party organi- ton era. zations, from the national level down Why couldn’t unified-party control

32 BR MAY / JUN 2011 forum

ensure fiscal discipline? The reason, stands. I see political parties that raise morph back into a better institution. I conjecture, is the broken ideologies money from the same corporations, Stephen Ansolabehere takes us of the two parties. A policy that offers shift with the same political winds, from the low point of the parties in greater entitlements without generat- love their incumbents more than their the 1970s to their dominance today. ing new revenue or that drastically country, and misbehave in the same Unfortunately, achieving this dream cuts taxes without cutting expendi- way on the House floor. There are of political scientists has not produced tures is undoubtedly irresponsible. some differences between the parties, a better Congress, so Ansolabehere Yet that is the comic-book version of but the parties exaggerate them just as posits that both parties have “broken the parties’ fiscal policies. Each ideol- Coke and Pepsi do, spending fortunes ideologies.” He’s right, reminding me ogy works poorly when dominant. But advertising nearly identical products. of G.K. Chesterton’s aphorism: “The they work well in tension with one an- Norm Ornstein helps us measure business of Progressives is to go on other, as in the 1990s—they are the yin polarization when he shows that, for making mistakes. The business of the and yang of policy. the first time, the parties in Congress Conservatives is to prevent the mis- have almost no ideological overlap. takes from being corrected.” This despite the fact that most vot- Both John Samples and David ers are centrists. Ornstein, the dean of Brady believe that I idealize the speak- congressional observers, also decries ership of Tip O’Neill, although I cite perpetual campaigning, whether to that “imperfect but functional” era remain in Congress or to rise within as proof that today’s Congress can Jim Cooper replies it. He wins my prize for proposing the improve simply by following once- U.S. Representative from Tennessee’s Fifth District boldest measures for changing con- familiar customs. They are entirely gressional culture. Getting citizens to correct that the “good old days” were show up at the polls (as in Australia) never that good. But the fact that Re- and getting members of congress to publicans were the minority party live near each other (in Washington, during the 1980s is a coincidence, not D.C.) would do wonders to improve a necessary precondition for return moderation and civility. to civility or informed policymaking. Nick Nyhart shares with Ornstein Samples suggests that my approach is and me the belief that perpetual cam- backward-looking, though my propos- paigning and fundraising have dam- als for reforming redistricting, com- aged policymaking. To his credit, he bating the effects of Citizens United, describes the only specific legislation and altering congressional pay seem for fundamental reform, the Fair Elec- so novel as to be potentially imprac- tions Now Act, which would enable tical. I am intrigued by Samples’s candidates to fund campaigns with conceptual framework: problems of It’s an honor to play intellectual small local contributions, subsidizing taxpayer consent, declarations of war, tennis with so many top professionals. grassroots fundraising with public fi- and government centralization—all Each return of service made me scram- nancing. It is disappointing that there fundamental constitutional issues that ble. I only wish for extended volleys so are so few other pending proposals for Congress routinely ignores. that we could determine, once and for campaign-finance reform. Andrew Gelman pushes me back all, who has the best ideas for fixing Kenneth Shepsle and Kathryn Pear- on my heels in order to look at Con- Congress. son provide valuable historical expla- gress from a societal perspective. The Almost all the commentators agree nations for the current structure of the messages that citizens receive from that Congress is broken, but Contrar- House of Representatives. Shepsle’s official and unofficial authorities cre- ian John Geer does make a valiant broader analysis draws lessons from ate massive confusion both outside defense of polarization—or “party earlier speakerships—Joe Cannon’s and inside Congress. The rollercoaster responsibility”—in Congress, believ- autocracy and Sam Rayburn’s colle- economy and incomprehensible bud- ing it leads to increased voter interest giality. Pearson gives a more detailed get numbers have spread fear and and participation. Geer likes debunk- and recent look at how internal groups loathing throughout the populace and ing conventional wisdom, as he did such as the Steering & Policy and made Congress’s job much more dif- in his important 2006 book on attack Rules Committees can alter the way ficult. ads, In Defense of Negativity. I worry, the House performs. Shepsle and Pear- In many ways the most challeng- however, that he gives political parties son implicitly give us up hope that ing response is from my friend and too much credit for taking principled our ever-changing Congress can still colleague, David Price. There is no one

BostonReview.NET maY / JUN 2011 BR 33 forum

in Congress I respect more, yet his tiques. There is no rule book, and there for two years, has temporarily banned diagnosis of congressional ills differs are no referees. earmarks. Why not identify and limit markedly from mine. I chafe at strong Perversely, the worse Congress acts, other abuses? Yet tolerance for con- speakers but not at strong presidents; the more interesting it is to study. Crit- gressional subterfuge seems unlimited Price is the reverse. I oppose earmarks; icism of congressional misbehavior as long as your favorite political party he defends them as an institutional is almost a sign of naïveté; informed remains in power. prerogative. Fortunately, we agree that observers cannot be too cynical . . . or If the Supreme Court operated like the Simpson-Bowles commission of- permissive. Another Gilded Age would Congress, rulings would be unsigned fers hope of saner federal budgets. make great thesis material. The unspo- dicta, with nothing to anchor the ken assumption appears to be that the opinion. Such rulings would make it Performance Through Accountability country will survive almost any Con- impossible to hold the justices or the Is it unsportsmanlike to point out gress. I hope this is true, but that few commentators respond to I am doubtful. Isn’t it disturbing that my interest in exploring merit pay Isn’t it disturbing that no no one can say for sure for Congress? I am not claiming that one can objectively answer I served an ace; it probably looks out- simple questions such as, where members of of-bounds, a shot that need not be “who is a conscientious or Congress stand on key taken seriously. I agree that merit pay a civil member?” or “which is either “unworkable” or impossible to party really supports defi- policies? pass, just like almost every other major cit reduction?” or “who reform. But let me take another swing. opposes the conflict in Libya?” For Court accountable, or for lower courts Early in the movement to pay more than half a century Congress has or agencies to implement their deci- teachers or doctors for performance, abandoned declarations of war, and sions. How convenient for judicial it was deemed impossible to measure has done so with impunity. Members reputations! How chaotic! what a child learned in class or how dread the rare exceptions—the up-or- My critique of Congress is essen- healthy a patient should be. To reward down vote on a clearly stated national tially “liberal”—too many special in- or punish teachers or doctors on that issue—because all the public really terests, too much money and polar- basis seemed ridiculous, and these are knows is who gets re-elected, and ization—and my solutions essentially indeed difficult tasks. Similarly tax- which party has a majority. The rest “conservative”—disclosure of gerry- payers and academics today have lost is spin. Pundits and TV analysts trade mandering, corporate self-restraint, hope of incentivizing better congres- anecdotes in order to project their own and merit pay. This centrist approach sional behavior, although, as I point views onto the news. Congress has does not fit neatly into ideological out, special interests have been doing become a Rorschach test that reveals boxes. Today’s polarized Congress this for decades. I think it is obvious much more about the observer than makes it difficult to think across party who gets more for their money. Must the institution. Even the recent shift to lines or to understand and respect an we continue to ignore the advantage parliamentary behavior has escaped adversary’s point of view, whether in that special interests possess? public attention. It makes you wonder Congress or the academy. The prevailing academic view if gang activity in Congress would be Perhaps if we had more objective seems to be that Congress will always noticed or condemned. Supporters of guidelines for proper behavior, more be subjectively, not objectively, ana- the winning gang are sure to condone acceptance of responsibility, Congress lyzed, without any real accountability the behavior. could start repairing itself. After all, for individual members or for the in- The most useful part of pay-for-per- Congress has managed to fix itself, stitution as a whole. Congress will al- formance is deciding what to measure. with mixed success, for more than two ways misbehave, and liberal analysts This would finally open the black box centuries, and it has always needed will respond with liberal critiques and of Congress. Voting is the only true prompting. Today we seem to lack ur- conservative analysts conservative cri- voice of Congress, but congressional gency for reform, objective role mod- voting is so muddled and indecipher- els, or criteria for improvement. And able that it is difficult to prove where we can’t hear ourselves think for all members or parties stand. This is no the partisan noise. accident. Why not curb logrolling We can, and must, make better sau- and require clear standalone votes sage in the factory of Congress. To do on major issues? President Reagan that, we must learn how the legislative called for an end to omnibus legisla- machines work and who is operating tion. Congress finally spotlighted and, them well.

34 BR MAY / JUN 2011 forum

The MIT Press

When Johnny and Surveillance or Security? Jane Come Marching Home The Risks Posed by New How All of Us Can Help Veterans Wiretapping Technologies Paula J. Caplan Susan Landau “A distinguished champion of pub- “The ability of a citizen to securely com- lic health, Paula Caplan shows that municate with her peers lies at the heart emotional trauma is often the normal of the rule of law. Landau demonstrates and healthy response of soldiers to the the necessity of protecting that right brutalities of warfare. So what we need is amidst the technological changes that not a narrow redefinition of the soldier’s can greatly alter the balance of power experience as a medical ‘syndrome’ but between citizens and governments.” rather an honest social healing process — Jonathan Zittrain, Harvard University; that treats the soldier with dignity and author, The Future of the Internet—And respect—and as a harbinger of hope for How to Stop It all of society.” — Jamin Raskin, American University, Reforming U.S. Financial and Maryland State Senator Markets Reflections Before The End of Energy and Beyond Dodd-Frank The Unmaking of America’s Environment, Randall S. Kroszner Security, and Independence and Robert J. Shiller Michael J. Graetz edited and with an introduction by Benjamin M. Friedman “A winner—and quite possibly the best and most important book from this “Much of the literature on the financial outstanding political writer. The End of crisis finds economists talking past one Energy is a beautifully written book on a another. It is refreshing, therefore, to fascinating and vital topic. Graetz is out find some of our leading economists to wake us up.” engaging one another, thoughtfully and fully, in this volume. Their fundamental — James Morone, Brown University, and concern is how to ensure that finance author of Hellfire Nation serves society rather than the other way around. Their contributions to answering Government’s Place this question should help to point dis- in the Market cussions of post-crisis reform in a more Eliot Spitzer productive direction.” In his first book, the former New York — Barry Eichengreen, University of governor and current CNN cohost offers California, Berkeley a manifesto on the economy and the The Alvin Hansen Symposium on Public Policy at Harvard University public interest. A Boston Review Book

Inside the Fed Monetary Policy and Its Management, Martin through Greenspan to Bernanke Revised Edition Stephen H. Axilrod An insider’s account of the workings of the Federal Reserve, thoroughly updated to encompass the Fed’s action (and inaction) during the recent financial meltdown.

To order call 800-405-1619 • http://mitpress.mit.edu • Visit our e-books store: http://mitpress-ebooks.mit.edu

BostonReview.NET maY / JUN 2011 BR 35