Laura Maristany co-wrote this blog post with Anne Gleich.
As we welcome a new year — and inch closer to midterm elections — the makeup of our current Congress continues to gain attention. With growing frustration around their perceived dysfunction, the need for leadership development and, particularly, candidate development programs across the nation have become a topic of national concern. In response to the spotlight, many groups are using the opportunity to launch new efforts and create pipelines of new candidates for Congress with hopes that helping the institution look more like the rest of America will increase its ability to function. In 2017, we conducted an environmental scan of leadership development programs geared towards elected officials and identified over 700 groups currently committed to this work. While the scan focused on identifying an average number of groups in this space – and not necessarily their models or effectiveness – it made it clear that we are all looking for the secret sauce to ensure more representative, more functional institutions. The question is, does broader representation on its own lead to a more functional Congress?
There is no doubt that we should continue to identify and support groups committed to developing the next generation of leaders, as well as those working with current elected leaders to promote their continued growth. These groups should continue to develop leadership pipelines to Congress and acknowledge that it is not simply about changing the landscape. We also need to ensure this pipeline is filled with constructive voices. We often hear that Congress would be more functional if it looked more like the America it represents. This could help, but we also need to develop leaders who can promote more constructive politics.
Democracy Fund has embraced this challenge as a foundation. To understand why, let’s take a step back and talk about bipartisanship, which is often viewed as a key to making a dysfunctional government functional. The problem is, forcing people — and particularly elected officials — to choose bipartisanship won’t address the underlying issues. People are partisan — generally we believe our own policy approach is the best approach. Our work in systems mapping tells us that even when we agree, there might be other forces — like towing the party line — that get in the way of compromise, and ultimately lead to gridlock and hyper partisanship. In this context, it is not enough that we commit to creating pipelines of diverse voices: we also need to shift political incentives. In our opinion, the missing ingredient to the “secret sauce” is whether the leaders in those pipelines, and our elected officials, care enough about the issues to come to the table to discuss, debate, and ultimately pass legislation with civility and respect. In other words, how willing are they to stand up for their constituents?
Democracy Fund believes that when our leaders care enough — about their community, constituents, or policy agenda — they will be willing to come to the table, have tough conversations, and accomplish the goal of legislating. We believe this work is crucial to the continued health of our democracy. Therefore, Democracy Fund is proud to support organizations and programs that are working to build diverse pipelines and bridges for constructive conversations, including:
Aspen Socrates Program American Values Seminars (AVS) will leverage their network and convene local leaders from a wide range of backgrounds and sectors under the tested Socrates seminar model with the aim of creating connections, promoting civil discourse and increasing dialogue in local communities. AVS will serve as a forum for the open exchange of ideas and the cultivation of leadership steeped in our shared American values. This duty, of citizen engagement and civic responsibility, remain as timely and as timeless, as ever.
The Cato Institute Project on the Prospects for Liberal Democracy which seeks to defend and improve liberal institutions as a way of avoiding the threat of populism. The project will make a concerted effort to vindicate liberal institutions and bolster them where they are weak by identifying reforms that can make them more responsive — not to transient public passions, but to what Madison termed “the cool and deliberate sense of the community.”
The Millennial Action Project works to re-establish cooperation over party lines in Congress by working with millennial members of state and national legislatures to encourage a new generation of lawmakers in our country. It also works to increase the thoughtful engagement of millennial constituents by elected officials.
The National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona encourages political and civic leaders to embrace vigorous debate in a way that allows diverse perspectives to be shared, complex issues to be discussed thoughtfully, and challenging topics to be explored. NICD travels the country to provide trainings to elected officials on how to act civilly to one another.
Cultivate the Karass provides tools for emerging leaders to overcome polarization, establish common ground, and build trust with one another. With the goal of promoting a healthy democracy through cultivating civil discourse and bipartisanship, Cultivate the Karass brings together leaders from different disciplines and political backgrounds to work together and acts as another model to break down barriers to civil conversations.
We hope you will join us in tackling this challenge.
At a time when some are uncertain about the strength of our democracy, organizations supported by Democracy Fund give me reason to feel grateful, and hopeful.
Along with the Hewlett Foundation’s Madison Initiative, Democracy Fund’s Governance Program is not only seeing increasingly robust programming by our grantees, but also more of them working together to coordinate and maximize the impact of their efforts to support congressional function.
The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, working with the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, has developed the Staff Up Congress initiative to strengthen and diversify the pipeline of senior staff working in the House and Senate. If it is true that Congress will be more responsive to the American people when it better reflects the perspectives and backgrounds of ALL Americans, then this initiative can help ensure a Congress that not only better serves our country, but in doing so also helps make our discourse more civil and respectful of others’ differences.
(L) Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Arturo Vargas, (R) Rep. Barbara Lee at Staff Up Congress event.
Members of the Freshman class of 2017 committed to each other during the New Member orientation in Williamsburg in January that they would continue to reach across the aisle and work together on a bipartisan basis to get things done for the country despite their differences. They felt that this was the message of the 2016 election and that they needed to make a commitment to each other to not allow the forces of partisanship pull them apart once they were actively serving in Washington. They have maintained this commitment, through their “Summer of Civility” and most recently with their holiday “Civility Pledge.”
Photo from the Congressional Accountability Hearing
The efforts of the working group, the Women’s Congressional Policy Institute and the bipartisan “Joint Session” women chiefs of staff group, and others, was evident in the wake of the sexual harassment revelations on Capitol Hill.The relationships developed through this and other bipartisan programming helped both members and chiefs reach across the aisle and work toward a responsible, bipartisan reaction to the exposure of outdated processes and lax outreach and disclosure by the Office of Compliance. Together, they are working with the House Administration Committee to support development of credible legislation to better support Hill offices and the institution of Congress as a whole.What do all of these organizations have in common? As we note in our systems map, a key component of increased congressional function is breaking down hyper-partisanship, intolerance, and anger so that the sharing of ideas and civil discourse can occur; this is the first step toward a more functional legislative process and, ultimately, a higher-performing Congress.
While the institution still faces many challenges and much much more work lies ahead, this commitment to working across partisan lines to support increased civility and helping the institution work better – not just for those who serve there but for all Americans – is a key focus of Democracy Fund’s Governance Program. As 2017 comes to a close and we look toward 2018, we see signs of hope, and are grateful for our partnership with the Hewlett Foundation Madison Initiative and others to support the good work of so many organizations promoting this essential quality of a more effective government of, by and for the people.
Today when people think about entrepreneurship and innovation, they tend to associate those concepts with the private sector. Maybe they think about Steve Jobs or Elon Musk—leaders whose big ideas revolutionized an industry. Or maybe they think about the legions of small business owners fueling the American economy. If you search for the word entrepreneur online, most of the results are about people who have opened their own businesses or developed new products or technologies. The bottom line is that entrepreneurship has become synonymous with the private sector.
Yet, our great nation was built by political entrepreneurs—visionaries who innovated new tools of governance and pushed the boundaries of what is possible. America today is radically different than the America of 1789, and while our founding fathers developed a forward-looking model of governance, we need their modern counterparts to help us think through how democratic institutions evolve and survive in the modern world.
At Democracy Fund, we understand this and actively seek out people and organizations who are working to disrupt the existing polarized political climate by promoting civil dialogue, sharing unbiased research, collaborating on breakthrough ideas, and embracing common-sense steps to strengthen our democracy. As Associate Director for Constructive Politics at Democracy Fund, I had the opportunity to travel across the country this summer learning about a new generation of leaders who are doing just that. My journey took me from D.C. to Chicago to Dallas to Malibu, where I attended several events by organizations focused on fostering a more constructive politics in the United States.
The Millennial Action Project (MAP) is working directly with leading young policymakers on both a national and state level to spur bipartisan legislation and innovative policy solutions. Defined by diversity, technology, pragmatism, and collaborative attitude, the millennial generation refuses to see the world in traditional ideological terms. Through projects like the Future Caucus, the State Future Caucus Network, the James Madison Fellowship, and the Millennial Policy Forum, MAP is elevating fresh ideas and building a network of cooperative millennial thought leaders.
At a convening by the Harris School of Public Policy’s Project on Political Reform, I watched a bipartisan group of political consultants discuss the rise of political polarization and how increasing distrust in our institutions could impact the future of our political system. During campaign season, you could never imagine these folks sitting in one room, much less swapping stories and collaborating on pragmatic solutions. Yet, here they were, focused on developing pragmatic solutions to our nations’ most difficult challenges. They might not have agreed on every policy solution, but constructive dialogue is the first step toward positive action for the American people.
The National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials’ (NALEO) Annual Conference brought together Latino elected officials from across the political spectrum to engage in dialogues about their role in the future of our country. In many cases using their personal time and funding to attend the conference, Latino elected officials were able to take advantage of informative sessions about subjects like how communities prepare for an emergency, how education policy changes at the federal level are implemented locally, and evolution of media and its impact on American politics.
Pepperdine University’s American Project convened conservative thought leaders and academics to talk about the issues and challenges impacting the future of the conservative movement. The conversations served as a reminder that while we will always have differing views, even within the parties, we are all Americans and want our country to succeed. Policy disagreements will continue to challenge us, but healthy democracy requires partisans who are committed to promoting their views constructively.
Overall, this summer I was reassured and inspired by the events I attended. Healthy democracy requires spaces for civil conversations where individuals can learn about each other, hear different points of view, and discuss their differences respectfully and productively. In each city I visited, I met Americans of all ages, races, and political ideologies who share these values and are brimming with ideas to make our democracy stronger. It leaves me with no doubt that America’s future is bright.
To learn more about our grantees who are working to ensure that Americans come first in our democracy, visit www.democracyfund.org/portfolio.
This post was co-authored by Chris Crawford, Program Associate for the Governance team.
In this age of intense polarization, Americans have a habit of retreating to their comfortable political corners. Our institutions of government and our media both suffer from low approval ratings. In an era of cynicism, teamsmanship, and distrust, The Faith Angle Forum has shined brightly as an example of civility, understanding, and deeper learning. Its leader, Michael Cromartie, was a champion of democratic values.
For three years, Democracy Fund has been a lead investor in the Faith Angle Forum, a project of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Twice per year, Faith Angle Forum gathers the nation’s top journalists to discuss the issues facing the nation – an opportunity for journalists to engage with religious experts on topics of the day. Shortly after the election of Pope Francis, Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute and John Carr of Georgetown University’s Initiative on Catholic Social Thought discussed the ways in which Catholic teaching responds to poverty, from the political Left and the Right. Last spring, journalists gathered with author Kate Bowler to discuss the Prosperity Gospel, the faith tradition in which President Donald Trump was raised. And each election year, Faith Angle Forum has gathered polling experts to discussed the way in which voters from different faith traditions voted in the election.
It is obvious to all observers why this project is important. But to the participants, the project was made especially important by its leader. Michael Cromartie was deeply dedicated to democratic values. In addition to his deep religious faith, Michael had faith in the ability of the American people to process information when presented with the facts. He dedicated his career to creating a deeper understanding between the American media and the American people.
On August 28, Michael Cromartie died after a heroic battle with cancer. He was the rock on which a significant segment of our political class rested. He valued deeper understanding. He exuded joy. And he never tired of forging partnerships to strengthen our collective institutions.
Memorials have been pouring in from our nation’s stop media outlets, praising Michael for his life’s work. Carl Cannon of Real Clear Politics, a frequent attendee of Faith Angle Forum, wrote an especially precise summary of Michael’s impact on American politics:
“Mike Cromartie did more to ensure that American political journalism is imbued with religious tolerance, biblical literacy, historical insight, and an ecumenical spirit than any person alive. No one is a close second. This man was one of a kind.”
Peter Wehner, Michael’s colleague at EPPC, wrote that Michael “enriched the public dialogue and helped shape American culture.” In addition, he noted that Michael, “was a man who left a deep imprint on people’s hearts and souls.”
Peter’s word are appropriate and accurate. His understanding of Michael both as a human being and as a leader in his field have prepared Peter to continue the Faith Angle Forum project this fall in Miami.
Michael’s genuine desire to learn from others, and to bring the rest of us along with him, made him an ideal convener. His good nature was evident whether talking with titans of the media industry, think tank presidents, or with the hotel staff at Faith Angle Forum, all of whom he knew by name. In addition to his work with Faith Angle Forum, Michael was a central part of Democracy Fund’s Voter Study Group. With Michael’s help and unique ability to bring people together, we gathered researchers and analysts from a broad section of the political spectrum to collaborate on a project designed to listen to the American people.
With the passing of Michael Cromartie, Democracy Fund has not just lost an incredibly valuable grantee; we have suffered from a death in the family. Our thoughts are with Michael’s wonderful wife Jennifer, his EPPC colleagues, and the countless people who were honored to call him a friend. Our work would be unnecessary if our country was filled with men and women like Michael Cromartie.
“State of the Congress: Staff Perspectives on Institutional Capacity in the House and Senate” reveals that senior congressional staff have deep concerns about important aspects of congressional operations and performance.
Imagine having a job that requires you to master complex subject matter thrown at you at a moment’s notice in rapid fashion. Now imagine that you have practically no time, training, or resource support to learn that material with any real depth. Nobody else around the office knows anything about what’s on your plate either to even point you in the right direction. Oh, and you’re using a 10-year-old computer and work practices are such that you’re still literally pushing paper around much of the day.
How would you feel about the job you were doing in that situation? How long would you stay?
Unfortunately, for many congressional staffers, this description is all too apt of their workplace. New research authored by Kathy Goldschmidt of the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) reveals how dissatisfied congressional staff are with their ability to perform key aspects of their jobs they understand are vital to the function of the institution as a deliberative legislative body. The dysfunction that the public sees in Washington, the report reveals, really is the product of a Congress that lacks the capacity to fulfill its obligations to Americans.
CMF researchers performed a gap analysis of surveys they took of senior-level House and Senate staffers, measuring the distance between how many respondents said they were “very satisfied” with the performance of key aspects of their workplace they deemed “very important” to the effectiveness of their chamber. The largest gaps appeared in the three areas most closely connected to the institution’s ability to develop well-informed public policy and legislation and with Congress’s technological infrastructure to support office needs.
Although more than 80 percent of staffers though it was “very important” for them to have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to support members’ official duties, only 15 percent said they were “very satisfied’ with their chamber’s performance.
CMF found similar yawning gaps in satisfaction with the training, professional development, and other human resource support they needed to execute their duties, access to high-quality nonpartisan policy expertise, and the time and resources members have to understand pending legislation. Just six percent of respondents were “very satisfied” with congressional technological infrastructure.
These findings reflect a decades-long trend by Congress to divest in its own capacity to master legislative subject material. Just last month, more than a hundred members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted to slash funding for the Congressional Budget Office, despite its integral role in the legislative process.
But as the report concludes, opening the funding spigot and hiring more legislative staff alone will not solve the challenges to the resiliency of Congress as a democratic institution.
The Democracy Fund’s Governance Team has taken up ranks with a growing community to push for a more systemic approach to improving the operations and functions of our 240-year-old national legislature struggling to adapt to the forces of modernity. Certainly, Congress can do much more to support its own internal culture of learning and expertise: but civil society has a critical role in rebuilding congressional resiliency, too. Congress has just started to bring the vast technical and subject area know-how that exists outside its marble edifices to assist a process of institutional transformation. The work of establishing trusted modes of communications with constituents in this digital age, meanwhile, barely has begun.
The CMF report performs a critical pathfinding role, illuminating where the places of most dire need within the institution exist. I read it as an optimistic document: congressional staff know that their deepest deficiencies are critically important to the institution’s health. Energy is on the side of reform. The challenge ahead is not to be discouraged by the scale of the problems but to work systemically so that change can build upon itself and ripple through the system.
As a young political science major at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, I always dreamed about working in the policy space. While my great grandparents on both sides were involved in politics in Cuba, no one in my family had pursued a career in U.S. politics until me. Needless to say, I didn’t have a robust network of well-connected people who could help me get my foot in the door. So in 2005, when my mother heard about a paid congressional internship program, she immediately encouraged me to apply. Fortunately, I was accepted into the program and given the opportunity to work in the office of the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico – one of the busiest offices in the House of Representatives. This experience offered me a once in a lifetime opportunity to learn how Congress functions from the inside and build a network of peers and mentors, which eventually led me to a full time job on Capitol Hill.
In “this town” it is difficult to climb the Washington D.C. career ladder without having done your time on Capitol Hill. My paid internship opportunity and subsequent experience working in Congress is a staple of my resume that continues to open doors for me. But while internships continue to be a reliable path towards working for Congress, many are unpaid jobs – and there are very few young people with the means or ability to move to Washington, D.C. for a semester or summer to work for free. This is an especially acute problem for young people from low income and minority communities.
The result? A Congressional staff that currently does not represent the diversity of our nation.
At the Democracy Fund, we believe that healthy democracy demands vibrant public discussion and participation in our nation’s civic life. Robust public participation signals that people believe their voice and the institutions of our democracy matter. So we support programs and projects aiming to put people back at the center of our democracy in ways that give them the visceral experience of feeling heard and included.
Because it is the institution tasked with elevating the voice of all Americans to the national stage, Congress must make an effort to incorporate all the communities it serves. To truly represent the diverse people of this great nation, Congress should be committed to hiring the diverse people of this great nation.
It’s Time for Congress to Take a Long, Hard Look in the Mirror
In 2015, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (Joint Center) took the first steps to quantify the lack of diversity in Congressional staff through a study focusing on top staff leadership in the U.S. Senate. The results confirmed what is visible to anyone visiting their Member of Congress; minorities are grossly underrepresented in the institution tasked with representing all of us.
The Joint Center report found that of 336 top Senate staffers (Chiefs of Staff, Legislative Directors, Communications Directors, and Staff Directors), only 24 staffers were people of color – 12 Asian Americans, 7 Latinos, 3 African Americans, and 2 Native Americans.
The Joint Center’s chart shows the disconnect between what our country looks like in comparison to the top leadership in U.S. Senate offices.
Importantly, this is a problem for both Democrats and Republicans. For example, although African Americans account for 22% of Democratic voters, they account for less than 1% of Democratic top staff. Of the 6 Black top staffers in the U.S. Senate, only two are Democrats (the other four are Republicans).
As you digest these numbers, keep in mind that, aside from its duty to work with the House of Representatives on legislation, the U.S. Senate has the final word on who sits on our Supreme Court and on who leads the agencies in charge of implementing our national policy. Therefore, lack of diversity in Congressional staff has long lasting ripple effects throughout our nation’s institutions, and pretty much every facet of our lives. (The Joint Center plans to release similar information related to the House side in 2017.)
To correct the imbalance found by the Joint Center and to ensure Members of Congress are responding to the communities they represent, seeking out and hiring more diverse staff is more crucial than ever.
The Path Forward: Congressional Staff That Looks Like America
Regardless of your views on size and scope, when it comes to government, we as citizens long for institutions that carry out the will of the people, for policies that help our communities thrive, and for systems that improve our daily lives. As the representative institution in our system of government, Congress is in a unique position to elevate our voices, but to do that, it must continue to listen to us – all of us.
A Congress that looks like the people it represents is a crucial part of the strategy to rebuild public trust. Understanding that diversity is key to healthy organizations and institutions, Democracy Fund plans to make significant investments to organizations uniquely positioned to tackle these challenges and, hopefully contribute to breaking this vicious cycle.
Two of these organizations – the Joint Center and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund – are already leaders in this space and, with support from the Democracy Fund, will be able to scale their programs to ensure Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle prioritize diversity in their teams. New funding will allow these organizations to expand programs that help Congress recruit, train, and place qualified candidates for positions in congressional offices that better reflect the demographics of the constituencies they represent. They will also work to modernize congressional hiring practices, collaborate with existing diversity efforts to foster more relationships across the aisle, and promote professional development resources that help congressional staffers learn new skills, deepen their understanding of issues, and succeed in their careers.
Ultimately, we believe these programs can begin to move the needle towards a more representative Congress and help Members of Congress become more responsive to the communities they represent.
To learn more about these projects or to get involved, please email us at info@democracyfund.org.
Few things about Congress are simple: even different types of information it generates as a legislative body – from bill language and roll call votes, to members’ press releases and statements into the official record – are processed and maintained by a myriad of offices. Over the last half-dozen years, public servants of those offices and citizens invested in open access and easy use of the data Congress produces have gathered annually at the Legislative Data Transparency Conference, hosted by the Committee on House Administration. Originally held as an opportunity for the various stewards of legislative data to discuss collective challenges, in recent years the conference also has become a moment to herald the unappreciated success of the legislative data community in standardizing and releasing datasets that help the American people understand congressional efforts and hold elected representatives accountable.
On June 27, I joined OpenGov Foundation Executive Director Seamus Kraft and Demand Progress Policy Director Daniel Schuman on stage at this year’s conference. Our panel discussed how the legislative data community can use Democracy Fund’s Congress & Public Trust systems map to contextualize its efforts in the broader congressional reform movement.
Successes like publishing bill text in machine-readable formats or creating common xml schema are not going to end up on the nightly news. But a proper legislative data infrastructure makes it possible for bill histories and vote records to become evident with a few clicks of a mouse or for instant visualization of how a bill would change existing law. These types of innovations make it easier for members of Congress and their staff and to do their jobs and keep congressional conduct transparent for the electorate. In the broader transformation it encourages, in other words, legislative data reform efforts help strengthen congressional capacity and support a more informed citizenry.
It’s important from a systems perspective to remember that even work on small-scale projects can create ripples of change in a complex environment like Congress. As Schuman reminded the audience, every new dataset that comes online opens possibilities for techies to build new tools that help fill knowledge gaps people within the system can use to solve common challenges.
The panel suggested ways that individual organizations can utilize the systems map to think strategically about their contributions to institutional change. For example, Kraft said that the OpenGov Foundation drilled down on the map in the context of their product design, discovering in the process that constituent engagement was a vitally underserved focus area they could impact with a new project to transform congressional offices’ processing of voicemail and constituent calls.
The systems map also helps remind narrowly-focused communities like the one we addressed Tuesday that their collective efforts also impact the work of similar communities focused on different types of challenges. Washington is full of such groups, whether they focus on government ethics and transparency, the rules and procedures of Congress, of the ways in which advocacy groups make their case to lawmakers. Actions by one community change the dynamics of the system in significant ways for others. The challenge for those across such communities who care about a healthy congressional system is working in concert with one another to amplify efforts.
For our part, our team recently revised our systems map to represent our new thinking on congressional oversight of the Executive Branch. These changes better reflect the importance of government watchdog organizations, transparency and government oversight groups, whistleblowers, the media, and others in holding Congress accountable to its Constitutional responsibility to oversee the conduct of federal offices and the White House.
Congress’ inability to take up the substantive issues of the day and its constant partisan conflict are eroding what trust remains of the American people in the institution, further undermining their broader faith in government as a whole.
It is vital, therefore, that Congress change itself to become a more capable and responsive legislative body. Just as important, the voices of the public need to be heard through the static of our current shrill political discourse.
These improvements will require changes in behaviors and attitudes by actors inside and outside the congressional system. They will also require significant change to the way Congress currently conducts its legislative business, and a restoration of its internal capacity to form informed public policy. Because of this complexity, we employed systems thinking to map the roots of Congress’ current state.
With input from former members of Congress, Capitol Hill staffers, lobbyists, journalists, and scholars studying Congress, the Democracy Fund has generated an initial map that we hope will provide a holistic picture of congressional dysfunction and improve our understanding of how the institution can better fulfill its obligations to the American people. This work builds from efforts of our partners, the Madison Initiative of the Hewlett Foundation.
A story of dysfunction
The Democracy Fund began this project with a framing question: How is Congress fulfilling or failing to fulfill its obligations to the American people? Early on, we concluded that the institution was largely failing to do so. The broader and more substantive question was, why? What were the most significant dynamics contributing to this dysfunction? And what could be done to address them?
Of course, Congress is not failing completely in its responsibilities. By focusing on dysfunction within the current system, our goal was to produce a document that could help uncover useful intervention points for improving the institution that would not rely on complete systemic changes to the legislative branch or require a wholesale reinvention of American politics.
Core stories within the map
Three interrelated narratives, represented by the red and orange loops on this map, organize our detailed analysis of current congressional dysfunction.
The red loop explores how Congress receives and internalizes a variety of policy requests and how its performance in processing the demands placed upon it affects public satisfaction and trust in the institution.
This core story begins with an observation (in red) that Congress is struggling to keep up with the mounting demands and pressures coming at it from a diverse, wired society. Members are struggling to represent their constituents as they endeavor to process competing policy and political demands. The hyper-partisan political climate in both chambers has greatly weakened the institution’s capacity to function. Weakened congressional capacity further erodes public trust and satisfaction in the institution. This risks driving segments of the public away from political engagement altogether, robbing Congress of different points of view while intensifying the impact of the loudest and shrillest partisan voices it hears. The decline of congressional capacity and the growing dissatisfaction with congressional performance are intensified by the stories contained by the two orange core story loops.
Dissatisfaction, along with important demographic shifts within the two-party system, drives increasing intensity of electoral competition for partisan advantage in Congress. Governing majorities — particularly in the House — rarely have turned over so rapidly in U.S. history as they have in the last 20 years, leading the minority party to consistently focus on the belief that its return to power is just around the corner.
This competitiveness has led the parties to stake out clear ideological differences between one another, forcing their partisan constituencies farther and farther apart philosophically. As the parties and their constituents have fewer ideas in common, hyper-partisan behavior increases within the electorate and among those elected to Congress, winnowing the possibility for compromise and dragging down congressional function. The disengagement of citizens with little appetite for such partisan warfare has intensified hyper-partisanship within the institution.
The narrative captured in this loop helps explain the partisan gridlock that has ground legislative operations in Congress nearly to a halt. But even if its leaders were interested in advancing substantive legislation, dissatisfaction with congressional performance also has affected the institution’s ability to formulate thoughtful policy solutions. The second orange reinforcing core story loop captures this narrative, beginning with the observation that increased public dissatisfaction with Congress has led members to demonize the institution as they try to run against Washington from an insiders’ position. In practical terms, this political trope has led Congress to slash its own appropriations, reducing the size and quality of its staff and legislative support services. These reductions have weakened member and committee offices’ expert capacity to craft policy, increased the influence of outsider experts who often also proffer campaign donations, and further weakened Congress’ ability to represent the will of ordinary citizens.
Supporting loops
The remaining loops on the map describe how other factors in the system intensify these central narratives. They include factors acting inside Congress (light blue) as well as external factors (royal blue).
Political-industrial complex
This loop describes the financial forces in contemporary congressional campaigns that reinforce the intensity of competition for majorities. Increased competition for majorities, along with changes to campaign nance, has driven more and more money into elections. Just as important, the recent increase in portability of campaign funds has effectively nationalized the electoral map, not only for parties’ campaign committees, but also for large- money donors. Nationalization of the electoral map drives greater competition for control of Congress, forcing members to spend an increasing amount of time raising money and developing relationships with donors nationwide.
Rhetoric of permanent campaign
With the increased ideological sorting of parties, party-nominated candidates are more likely to adhere to partisan orthodoxy on major issues. The emphasis on ideological differences between the parties also diminishes the importance of district-specific or event state-specific issues, making elections more likely to be referenda on the positions of either party as a whole. As a result, members have reinforced their commitment to their party’s ideological principles by ramping up media outreach or introducing legislation that stakes out political turf with little hope of becoming law (so-called “messaging legislation”). These efforts increase the ideological sorting of parties taking place broadly among the electorate.
Echo chambers
The increase in the ideological sorting of parties has created a robust and growing marketplace for partisan news and opinion. The reach of these outlets is augmented by the ability of voters to easily share material on social media. Because of this growth in partisan news and social media, congressional offices increasingly interact with audiences who consume information in a partisan echo chamber. In this media environment, offices face a heightened demand to speak directly to consumers of partisan news. This shift in attention reinforces the ideological perspectives of many partisan constituents, as well as members of Congress, and further defines the ideological positions behind a partisan identity.
Ideological influencers
In this section, two intertwined loops explore how the growing prominence of ideological elites intensifies the ideological sorting of parties. Partisan echo chambers have boosted the reach of ideological elites in the marketplace of political ideas. As a result, these elites are in a better position to scold members of Congress for ideological deviance or to champion favorites. Similarly, the ideological sorting of parties has created a fear in many incumbents’ minds that taking (or appearing to take) a moderate stance on issues may invite a primary challenge from a more ideologically committed opponent. This fear leads many incumbents to align themselves with ideological elites or to seek their support, further intensifying the ideological drift of the parties away from the center.
Demands for loyalty
Hyper-partisanship in Congress reinforces party discipline on roll call votes and in setting the legislative agenda. This drive for loyalty increases intraparty conflict as factions within the caucuses argue over the best courses of action to maximize political advantages and to live up to partisan ideals. Members risk being accused of disloyalty — and denied campaign nance resources and leadership positions — for aggressively pursuing policy solutions with members from the other side of the aisle. These penalties diminish the number and quality of bipartisan working relationships and further reinforce hyper-partisan behavior.
This demand for loyalty also is connected to the growing role of party leaders in setting the legislative agenda. As the capacity of Congress to function as a lawmaking institution has fallen because of members’ inability to work together, leadership has taken on more control of the legislative process. Their increase in control can mean fewer opportunities for compromise-seeking members to chart their own policy courses, as their work would unlikely make headway and could generate disciplinary action by their own leaders. Leadership’s weakening of cross-aisle working relationships therefore further reduces the capacity of Congress to legislate effectively.
Weakening of committees
Leadership’s more powerful role further weakens congressional capacity by undermining the power of committees. Whereas committees and subcommittees have historically enjoyed their own staff and significant latitude to develop proposals and seek legislative compromises, autonomy has been reduced and control shifted into the hands of party leadership. This shift has weakened another potential generator of bipartisan cooperation.
Weakening of congressional oversight
As congressional capacity decreases, the White House takes more responsibility for agenda setting. The political linkages between the executive and legislative branches are thereby intensified as congressional leadership calculates moves relative to the success or failure of the presidency. Because of these intensified linkages, congressional perspective on oversight has shifted toward more political ends. When congressional majorities share the party of the president, committee chairs are reluctant to conduct regular oversight hearings for fear of dredging up embarrassing information that may harm the White House politically. When government is divided, congressional leaders are more likely to use oversight as a political weapon against the president, and federal agencies are less likely to share information that committees request in oversight investigations.
As the independence of oversight from partisan politics decreases, so does the number of authentic oversight hearings – even if adequate staff is trained to execute the hearings successfully. These hearings are a crucial venue for effective congressional oversight — without them, overall institutional capacity to examine the conduct of the federal bureaucracy diminishes. Because oversight is a key constitutional responsibility of Congress, the capacity of the institution further suffers. Reduced independence of oversight from partisan politics also negatively impacts the effectiveness of outside watchdog groups, which further diminishes authentic oversight hearings. A more partisan congressional environment encourages some watchdog groups to act in kind, mobilizing only around investigations that can harm political opponents. Increased partisanship in oversight also lessens the ow of information to nonpartisan watchdog groups from Congress, negatively impacting their effectiveness.
Political incentives for authentic oversight
The political and policy linkage of the executive branch to Congress can cut both ways in terms of oversight, however. The melding together of political fortunes of the branches under united-party government has unique consequences. The greater the perception of misconduct by the executive branch, the louder outside political groups and government watchdogs will call for robust investigation of White House conduct, which increases political pressure for committees to do so. Outside groups’ effort and attention drive greater attention to executive branch conduct in the press, further intensifying the pressure on the White House. For Congress, the political cost of appearing complicit with presidential misdeeds can lead to renewed authenticity of oversight, mitigating some of the damage of other negative reinforcing loops.
Interpersonal impact of oversight
The weakening of independent oversight from partisan politics negatively affects bipartisan working relationships in Congress — particularly among the members of various committees whose collaboration on oversight is essential for execution. This breakdown creates a loop that is negative and reinforcing, and further weakens the independence from partisanship.
Gotcha reporting
This set of loops explores the role that traditional inside the Beltway media plays in magnifying congressional dysfunction. With reduced resources, expertise and reporting capacity, and with congressional capacity for policy simultaneously weakening, Capitol Hill journalism has shifted attention toward interpersonal and interparty conflict. This shift in focus and tone has led many member offices to limit reporters’ access in an effort to avoid the game of “gotcha.”
The constriction of information ow to traditional mainstream media outlets — facing their own reduced capacity and expertise — has created an environment in which congressional offices “communicate” with other lawmakers by sending messages through or leaking information to an already resource-starved media. Conflict-driven coverage relies on unnamed sources and lower editing standards, opening journalists up to manipulation by those inside the system. Unattributed comments create a dysfunctional track of communication through the media that can impact the course of negotiations on legislation and undermine the ability of members to negotiate in good faith and reach agreement.
Changes to congressional offices and staff
These loops explore shifts in the professional qualities and experience of Capitol Hill aides caused by the reduction in resources and strategic adjustments in their work.
Fewer resources drive greater turnover in congressional offices. It’s not just about salary: for wonks interested in working on policy, the recent decline in resources also means the best opportunities for professional development may exist outside Congress. Low pay attracts less experienced staff and the mindset that a job on the Hill is simply a means to a higher-paying job elsewhere in Washington. Members are increasingly hiring aides directly from campaigns. With less (or no) congressional experience, such staff tends to be driven more by partisan and ideological motivations and goals than by a desire to master policy or develop legislative expertise. Their presence on congressional staffs, combined with ideological shifts elsewhere in the system, has contributed to an increased focus on ideology across Congress and a reduction in policy expertise.
With declining official budgets, and less legislation being produced, members have found that hiring additional communications staff over policy staff is a more effective choice. This shift toward messaging makes particular strategic sense given leadership’s current dominance over the legislative process. The greater focus on messaging over legislating also addresses — and reinforces — the political needs that arise from the intensification of electoral competition and the ideological sorting of parties.
Intensification of political communications
As described in the primary core story, eroding satisfaction with congressional performance can intensify the demands and pressures placed upon the system. Members of the public who remain engaged do not simply give up on their interests and concerns; they find more aggressive ways to call for action by Congress.
The internet’s power to organize and aggregate many voices at once has changed the nature of advocacy, intensifying the demands and pressures Congress faces. Internet communication has made it cheaper and easier to activate ideologically-focused constituencies and swamp congressional offices with messaging, while keeping these constituencies engaged and active on issues. These new strategies have given rise to advocacy organizations that exist almost entirely online and often are founded around a core ideological perspective rather than the issue areas of traditional mass-membership advocacy groups. Some organizations also exist principally to raise money to underwrite political advertisements. The organizing and communications power of the internet also makes it easier to activate grassroots public participation in responding to congressional action or inaction.
The role of money
Although the map only occasionally mentions the role of money as an explicit factor in the congressional system, money plays a role in many of these factors. The factors directly affected by the influence of money on the system — either through its role in campaign nance, the business of political communication, or lobbying and constituent influence — are denoted by a green halo to help visualize their impact on congressional function and dynamics.
This piece was co-authored by Rick Shapiro, Senior Fellow at Democracy Fund and former executive director of the Congressional Management Foundation.
The horrible and indiscriminate attack on a group of House Republican members of Congress at their early morning baseball practice for a charity baseball game may prove to be a watershed moment in our country: the day Democrats and Republicans realized they had to change the direction of American politics to take our democracy off the downward spiral it was on.
The stark anger behind this attack seems to have driven home the point to many members of Congress that our nation’s politics is not only broken, but it is dangerous — to members of Congress and to the citizens they represent.
It has been encouraging to hear a growing number of members publicly call for their colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together to reverse current norms of incivility and model more constructive democratic behavior for the nation. Unfortunately, changing congressional behavior, while critical to any formula for lasting change, will not be sufficient for restoring the health and vitality to our democracy.
While many Americans view the behavior of members of Congress as both the problem and solution to what impedes our government, this perspective is short-sighted. It fails to take into account how mistrustful rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans are of each other as well as the institutions of government themselves and the role both play in government dysfunction.
A recent New York Times article aptly titled, “How We Became Bitter Political Enemies,” powerfully outlines the role hostility and mistrust between Democrats and Republicans plays in our nation’s politics. Using nationwide survey data from a range of pollsters, the Times story reveals that Americans today believe the “opposing party is not just misguided but dangerous.”
More specifically, “In 2016, Pew reported that 45 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of Democrats felt that the other party’s policies posed a threat to the nation.” Democrats and Republicans tended to view people who supported the other party as “exceptionally immoral, dishonest and lazy.” And about a third of the members of each party viewed members of the opposing party as “less intelligent” than average Americans.
In short, Democrats and Republicans — in unprecedented numbers — hold each other in contempt. This problem will not go away solely as a result of increasing bipartisan dinners and civility training. To truly address what ails our democracy, we must find a way for Democrats, Republicans and Independents to begin talking with — and listening to — each other again about the policy challenges facing the country and the factors that promote partisan mistrust, and rebuild their trust in their fellow Americans.
Members of Congress are well-situated to begin the efforts to reduce the rancorous divide and restore the public’s trust and confidence in their neighbors. They can fill this void by creating and convening new types of policy forums in their states and districts that encourage constituents with conflicting views to come together and discuss their differing views, enhance their understanding of the issues and explore options to find common ground. While successful models need to be piloted, tested and fine-tuned, here is some general guidance offices can use to get started.
At traditional town hall meetings, members of Congress are the primary speakers and center of attention. At these sessions, the focus should be on generating constructive dialogue amongst constituents on specific public policy questions. Given the public’s cynical view of politicians and their motives for meeting with constituents, taking on new roles like “convener,” “facilitator,” and “listener” rather than “messenger” would help alter this perception.
Participants in these sessions should share their candid views but cannot engage in derisive rhetoric that seeks to demean or show contempt for other points of view, nor should they interrupt or talk over other speakers. The goal should be conversation and problem solving, not debate and theatrics.
These politically charged conversations should be moderated by capable facilitators to minimize discord and promote effective communications. Some members could do this job well without training. Others would benefit from training or working alongside a skilled facilitator. Still others would do best to serve as the convener who opens and closes the sessions but does not participate in the discussion.
Members will ask, “Why would I want to take on responsibility for convening a discussion that could turn ugly and generate public conflict?”
Here are some answers. First, members want to be seen by their constituents as leaders who are trying to heal the nation and repair our democracy, not politicians who ignore serious problems or their constituents. Second, creating ongoing policy forums where the focus is on promoting discourse and trust amongst fellow constituents rather than evaluating the views of politicians will make members less likely to become a target of public anger.
Third, by convening these sessions, members will be teaching critical communications skills to tens of thousands of constituents across the country — active listening, asking questions, identifying areas of shared interest, managing conflict and engaging in joint problem solving. These skills are critical for effective participation in our democracy, but have been undermined by the growth of online communications and the decline of face-to-face communication.
Members who facilitate these discussions will also benefit from practicing communication skills that will enhance their ability to facilitate legislative agreements in Congress — active listening, asking clarifying questions, synthesizing the comments of others, modeling dispassionate discourse, intervening in debate to minimize discord and keeping the conversation on track.
Most importantly, if member offices across the country regularly convened these sessions, they would generate an ongoing, nationwide dialogue on public policy that could go a long way towards reducing partisan hostility and restoring trust in their fellow citizens and our democratic institutions. If members of Congress fail to address the rapidly growing partisan divide, the ability of democratic institutions to make wise decisions that reflect the best interests and thinking “of the people” will continue to decline.
Cookies Notice
This website uses cookies to provide you with an improved and personalized experience. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookies policy for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.
