It might be that one could start this in a small way, by simply requiring members to be in town and scheduling hearings and other work one Saturday a month for (say) eight months of the year. And then throw a few happy hours.
I spoke with a former (moderate) GOP congressman from New Jersey around ten years ago. He made a fairly strong argument that we would benefit from bringing back junkets, which were effectively banned in the Gingrich era (as I understand it). Yeah, it looked bad when an industry group would buy out a resort somewhere so Congress could hear their point of view, but it meant that the Members got to have fun together, which developed relationships that were useful in compromising over legislation.
I think another reason why Congress is so dysfunctional is that the majority leader of each house has nearly absolute power to decide what is even allowed to come to a vote, which means, in practice, that if a majority of the majority is not in favor of something, it dies, even if a bipartisan coalition of members exists to give a bill the majority it needs to pass.
Of course, the past couple years or so has had some high-profile exceptions to this, including debt ceiling suspension, not shutting down the government, and funding for Ukraine/Israel, but it's vary rare and one Republican speaker has already lost his job over going along with it.
At a bare minimum, any bill that passes the House should be entitled to an up or down vote in the Senate and vice-versa. But, I would go even further and say that minority parties in general should have more ability to force votes on stuff. Sure, the majority is free to vote no, and it won't pass, but they should have to go on record doing so, they shouldn't be able to hide, simply by refusing to vote on anything that divides them and unites their opponents.
Ok, I am now a subscriber so I can comment. Sorry for the snark. I agree that having members live with their families in DC would be game changing but for a different reason than what you mention. But before that, the primary reason that congressional sessions were reduced to Tuesday through Thursday was due to campaign finance changes that eliminated large donations in favor of small ones. More time was needed to fundraise when you were limited to having to reach out to thousands of small donors. But the benefit of living in DC with your families is that your kids go to school with the kids of other members (and even those of the other party), they play sports together, your spouses get to know other spouses. In other words, your family begins to socialize with a host of folk you would not otherwise get to know. And when you build those kinds of relationships it is harder to demonize the other side. it is easier to recognize the common ground that exists on most issues. Yes, living in DC with your family is a great idea, and long overdue.
I like the idea of more time devoted to the job and think spending time with coworkers does improve culture and would reduce partisanship.
Concerns:
1. You're filtering out anyone who is unwilling to move to DC, which is a lot of people.
2. You're selecting for people whose spouses can just uproot and move, which will probably reduce representation of women in Congress.
3. Congresspeople becoming more out of touch. A country ruled by the residents of one particular city. Less representative representatives.
4. A smaller, somewhat related issue, but I think all the children of our politicians going to school together is a recipe for corruption.
I'd modify it to 3-4 months, maybe in the spring to avoid DC summers and election season. You'd still get the comraderie but avoid a country ruled by DC residents. Also just buy a bunch of apartments that belong to the government, like we do with the White House, rather than subsidizing their property purchases.
I know this comment section isn't going to like this, but maybe the reason Congresspeople got along easier was because it was 90% white men from the same type of backgrounds - ie. middle aged somewhat religious usually somewhat well off and even if they were politically socially liberal, likely cared about that far less.
Like, ask the various female Senators that Strom Thurmond groped or tried to gripe if it was truly a collegial experience in the good ole days.
Also, the reason why Congress got along better is that in many of the big social issues they didn't actually disagree that much, and not that many people affected by said social issues were in the halls of Congress. Now, in a world with more women, more minorities, more LGBT representatives, you can't have a nice little deal on who to sell out to move forward the budget as easily and that's a good thing.
Like, I highly doubt a bunch of forced meetings is going to build a better working relationship with Republican who think the election was stolen or that women should be forced by the stare to give birth or vice versa.
There are actually large differences on how parts of this country wants things to mod forward, and Congress accurately reflects that.
Now, of course the fix for this basically giving more power to party elites and taking it away from the actual voters.
It anuses me there so much talk about the left not really caring about democracy, "because if they did, they'd moderate on these issues that I'm just concidentally moderate on as well."
Well at the same time, you care so much about democracy you want to make every general election between two bland centrists who don't actually disagree on anything and never push for anything you may not like.
The upshot really is that in a democracy whose constituents are reasonably well-represented *and* who are in sharp disagreement with one another, the country is ungovernable. This isn't just the U.S.: the Netherlands is far more unified than the United States, and six months after their election they still can't create a governing coalition.
"The upshot really is that in a democracy whose constituents are reasonably well-represented *and* who are in sharp disagreement with one another, the country is ungovernable."
I think that's only true if decision-making requires consensus. If not, you just need a majority coalition that can outvote dissenters. (This is the kind of "big-tent politics" that we're familiar with in the Canadian parliamentary system. There may be significant differences of opinion within a big-tent party, but the tradition of strong party discipline means that parliamentary votes are fairly predictable.)
Maybe we should frame a five day congressional workweek as an environmental measure, to cut down on the emissions associated with all the unnecessary weekend air travel. Maybe that’ll improve the optics?
1) I read somewhere recently a compelling argument that centralization of power (starting with Gingrich and peaking under Pelosi) such that all legislation began to come from the Speaker's office rather than committees shifted the incentive structure - since there is little actual legislative work to be done, members spend their time making attack lines to use in their commercials to raise money. Those interested in legislation are incentivized to leave. So we end up with lots of loudmouths on all sides. (The always awesome Remy did a terrific music video on the poor quality of debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko ).
2) they could also do a lot less - one reason they don't have time to substantively debate, etc. is that they pass too many laws, many of which aren't going anywhere in the other chamber. More focus on doing core government tasks well and on oversight of the executive branch (real oversight, not showboating). That would leave more time for substantive debates.
Why don't states just buy apartments or townhouses in DC for their congresspeople? They're effectively ambassadors, and countries own residences for their ambassadors. States have governors mansions. This seems like a no brainer.
The weekly travel schedule is also more unfair to west coast congresspeople (not to mention Hawaii & Alaska!). You raise good points, but most of them could be solved with a schedule change to a month-on month-off rotation combined with allowing voting by proxy for some of the unimportant stuff (naming post offices). Fwiw, I think that keeping the kids of congresspeople in a variety of school districts instead of some super-district in CD is actually a good thing :)
But it's funny that this is basically a quality of life problem that Congress has not been able to solve for itself. Every butt in those coach seats has a vote in the congressional rules and hasn't changed something Newt Gingrich did 30 years ago.
A friend proposed the opposite approach - representatives would be required to stay within the boundaries of their districts whenever congress was in session - voting and conferring (and talking to lobbyists) remotely, but easily available to their constituents.
There are two realities here. The first is that the best way to say you're out of touch with voters without saying you're out of touch with voters is to advocate "a starting [moving full time to DC] package of $1 million, with additional bonuses for children." The part about incentivizing MCs to move to DC is especially detached from the reality of the median voter. The second reality is that for highly talented professionals, becoming a member of Congress involves a massive pay cut. At the end of the day, you get what you pay for. https://www.levels.fyi/companies/facebook/salaries/product-manager?country=254
Great post, Ben! I love how seemingly prosaic issues that we sort of knew about but largely went under the radar - can make a great difference ! In particular I didn’t know Gingrich shortened the congressional work week! I think that’s a great example of process reflecting and empowering ideology (in the broad sense). Our problems of polarization and congressional dsyfunction are multi causal but not some inevitable curse. Sensible discussions such as yours can help start turning things around.
It might be that one could start this in a small way, by simply requiring members to be in town and scheduling hearings and other work one Saturday a month for (say) eight months of the year. And then throw a few happy hours.
I spoke with a former (moderate) GOP congressman from New Jersey around ten years ago. He made a fairly strong argument that we would benefit from bringing back junkets, which were effectively banned in the Gingrich era (as I understand it). Yeah, it looked bad when an industry group would buy out a resort somewhere so Congress could hear their point of view, but it meant that the Members got to have fun together, which developed relationships that were useful in compromising over legislation.
I think another reason why Congress is so dysfunctional is that the majority leader of each house has nearly absolute power to decide what is even allowed to come to a vote, which means, in practice, that if a majority of the majority is not in favor of something, it dies, even if a bipartisan coalition of members exists to give a bill the majority it needs to pass.
Of course, the past couple years or so has had some high-profile exceptions to this, including debt ceiling suspension, not shutting down the government, and funding for Ukraine/Israel, but it's vary rare and one Republican speaker has already lost his job over going along with it.
At a bare minimum, any bill that passes the House should be entitled to an up or down vote in the Senate and vice-versa. But, I would go even further and say that minority parties in general should have more ability to force votes on stuff. Sure, the majority is free to vote no, and it won't pass, but they should have to go on record doing so, they shouldn't be able to hide, simply by refusing to vote on anything that divides them and unites their opponents.
Address one of Matt’s pet peeves and build a very nice congressional subdivision in the Montgomery County Agricultural Reserve!
To live in a nice house in the DC area is way more than a Congressman makes.
Ok, I am now a subscriber so I can comment. Sorry for the snark. I agree that having members live with their families in DC would be game changing but for a different reason than what you mention. But before that, the primary reason that congressional sessions were reduced to Tuesday through Thursday was due to campaign finance changes that eliminated large donations in favor of small ones. More time was needed to fundraise when you were limited to having to reach out to thousands of small donors. But the benefit of living in DC with your families is that your kids go to school with the kids of other members (and even those of the other party), they play sports together, your spouses get to know other spouses. In other words, your family begins to socialize with a host of folk you would not otherwise get to know. And when you build those kinds of relationships it is harder to demonize the other side. it is easier to recognize the common ground that exists on most issues. Yes, living in DC with your family is a great idea, and long overdue.
I like the idea of more time devoted to the job and think spending time with coworkers does improve culture and would reduce partisanship.
Concerns:
1. You're filtering out anyone who is unwilling to move to DC, which is a lot of people.
2. You're selecting for people whose spouses can just uproot and move, which will probably reduce representation of women in Congress.
3. Congresspeople becoming more out of touch. A country ruled by the residents of one particular city. Less representative representatives.
4. A smaller, somewhat related issue, but I think all the children of our politicians going to school together is a recipe for corruption.
I'd modify it to 3-4 months, maybe in the spring to avoid DC summers and election season. You'd still get the comraderie but avoid a country ruled by DC residents. Also just buy a bunch of apartments that belong to the government, like we do with the White House, rather than subsidizing their property purchases.
I know this comment section isn't going to like this, but maybe the reason Congresspeople got along easier was because it was 90% white men from the same type of backgrounds - ie. middle aged somewhat religious usually somewhat well off and even if they were politically socially liberal, likely cared about that far less.
Like, ask the various female Senators that Strom Thurmond groped or tried to gripe if it was truly a collegial experience in the good ole days.
Also, the reason why Congress got along better is that in many of the big social issues they didn't actually disagree that much, and not that many people affected by said social issues were in the halls of Congress. Now, in a world with more women, more minorities, more LGBT representatives, you can't have a nice little deal on who to sell out to move forward the budget as easily and that's a good thing.
Like, I highly doubt a bunch of forced meetings is going to build a better working relationship with Republican who think the election was stolen or that women should be forced by the stare to give birth or vice versa.
There are actually large differences on how parts of this country wants things to mod forward, and Congress accurately reflects that.
Now, of course the fix for this basically giving more power to party elites and taking it away from the actual voters.
It anuses me there so much talk about the left not really caring about democracy, "because if they did, they'd moderate on these issues that I'm just concidentally moderate on as well."
Well at the same time, you care so much about democracy you want to make every general election between two bland centrists who don't actually disagree on anything and never push for anything you may not like.
The upshot really is that in a democracy whose constituents are reasonably well-represented *and* who are in sharp disagreement with one another, the country is ungovernable. This isn't just the U.S.: the Netherlands is far more unified than the United States, and six months after their election they still can't create a governing coalition.
"The upshot really is that in a democracy whose constituents are reasonably well-represented *and* who are in sharp disagreement with one another, the country is ungovernable."
I think that's only true if decision-making requires consensus. If not, you just need a majority coalition that can outvote dissenters. (This is the kind of "big-tent politics" that we're familiar with in the Canadian parliamentary system. There may be significant differences of opinion within a big-tent party, but the tradition of strong party discipline means that parliamentary votes are fairly predictable.)
Maybe we should frame a five day congressional workweek as an environmental measure, to cut down on the emissions associated with all the unnecessary weekend air travel. Maybe that’ll improve the optics?
1) I read somewhere recently a compelling argument that centralization of power (starting with Gingrich and peaking under Pelosi) such that all legislation began to come from the Speaker's office rather than committees shifted the incentive structure - since there is little actual legislative work to be done, members spend their time making attack lines to use in their commercials to raise money. Those interested in legislation are incentivized to leave. So we end up with lots of loudmouths on all sides. (The always awesome Remy did a terrific music video on the poor quality of debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko ).
2) they could also do a lot less - one reason they don't have time to substantively debate, etc. is that they pass too many laws, many of which aren't going anywhere in the other chamber. More focus on doing core government tasks well and on oversight of the executive branch (real oversight, not showboating). That would leave more time for substantive debates.
I think there'd be a lot of good candidates who wouldn't run if they had to move to DC, though.
But are these good candidates running *now*???
Why don't states just buy apartments or townhouses in DC for their congresspeople? They're effectively ambassadors, and countries own residences for their ambassadors. States have governors mansions. This seems like a no brainer.
When I grew up in Northern Virginia in the 1970's, I typically has at least a few classmates who has a congressman as a parent.
The weekly travel schedule is also more unfair to west coast congresspeople (not to mention Hawaii & Alaska!). You raise good points, but most of them could be solved with a schedule change to a month-on month-off rotation combined with allowing voting by proxy for some of the unimportant stuff (naming post offices). Fwiw, I think that keeping the kids of congresspeople in a variety of school districts instead of some super-district in CD is actually a good thing :)
But it's funny that this is basically a quality of life problem that Congress has not been able to solve for itself. Every butt in those coach seats has a vote in the congressional rules and hasn't changed something Newt Gingrich did 30 years ago.
A friend proposed the opposite approach - representatives would be required to stay within the boundaries of their districts whenever congress was in session - voting and conferring (and talking to lobbyists) remotely, but easily available to their constituents.
There are two realities here. The first is that the best way to say you're out of touch with voters without saying you're out of touch with voters is to advocate "a starting [moving full time to DC] package of $1 million, with additional bonuses for children." The part about incentivizing MCs to move to DC is especially detached from the reality of the median voter. The second reality is that for highly talented professionals, becoming a member of Congress involves a massive pay cut. At the end of the day, you get what you pay for. https://www.levels.fyi/companies/facebook/salaries/product-manager?country=254
Great post, Ben! I love how seemingly prosaic issues that we sort of knew about but largely went under the radar - can make a great difference ! In particular I didn’t know Gingrich shortened the congressional work week! I think that’s a great example of process reflecting and empowering ideology (in the broad sense). Our problems of polarization and congressional dsyfunction are multi causal but not some inevitable curse. Sensible discussions such as yours can help start turning things around.