Governance Archives

Blog

America needs a national dialogue to heal our political battle wounds

Betsy Wright Hawkings

June 26, 2017

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.

Back to Ideas

Statement

Democracy Fund Statement on Shootings Today in Virginia and California

Democracy Fund

June 14, 2017

Democracy Fund President Joe Goldman issued the following statement in response to the shooting incidents today in Alexandria, VA, and San Francisco, CA:

“With Americans across the country, Democracy Fund is appalled at today’s two shooting incidents, first at a Republican Congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, VA, and then in San Francisco, CA. While the nation is still learning about both horrific events, we are praying for the speedy recovery of all victims, including Congressman Steve Scalise, current and former congressional staff, and the U.S. Capitol Police officers. These honorable Americans, public servants, and their friends and families on both sides of the country are foremost in our thoughts.

“For two years, Democracy Fund has sponsored the Congressional Baseball Game because we believe the American people are best served when the parties and our elected officials are able to negotiate and compromise. Just as in baseball, our politics should be competitive, but at the end of the day we are all Americans and we are all on the same team. There is no room for violence in our democracy. We stand with Americans from across the political spectrum in condemning these senseless acts.”

As planned, Democracy Fund will attend the Congressional Baseball Game and highlight grantees that work with Congress to ensure that our legislative branch is able to fulfill its obligations to the American people. Democracy Fund’s Governance Program has invested in organizations including the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Congressional Management Foundation, the Millennial Action Project, the U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress, the Aspen Institute’s Congressional Program, and the Project on Government Oversight, among others.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Civility on I-81: The #BipartisanRoadTrip

Betsy Wright Hawkings

March 16, 2017

Congressmen Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) and Will Hurd (R-TX) might not agree on every aspect of education or trade policy. But they have experienced life on the highway – together.

Faced with travel delays caused by a winter storm, Reps. O’Rourke and Hurd made the practical decision to rent a car and head north, a choice anyone who knows the two men could understand. Rep. O’Rourke, who started his own small business, and Rep. Hurd, who served in the CIA during the War on Terror, are “get the job done” kinds of guys.

Their shared work ethic and commitment to serve their Texan constituents helped them connect during their long ride back to Washington. As they cruised along Route 81, these bipartisan road trippers drank coffee, stopped for snacks, and took questions from Facebook Live viewers tuned into their trip.

They also did something even more unusual these days: They showed their constituents and an audience from around the country that Republicans and Democrats could get to know each other and even be friends.

Beto O'Rourke kicks off the road trip — Rep. Beto O’Rourke kicks off the road trip.

Long before social media (and regular flights to Peoria!) former Leader Bob Michel (R-IL), and former Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) famously drove back and forth to Illinois together on the weekends. This time, though, online followers of the #BipartisanRoadTrip saw firsthand how so many on the Internet coalesced around the two. In this age of hyperpartisan politics, there are few Facebook Live streams that friends from across the aisle join together to watch. However, Americans from coast to coast tuned in to watch this unlikely duo make the long trek from Texas to Washington together.

As Katie Mettler reported in The Washington Post, O’Rourke and Hurd made stops for coffee and donuts along their route, pausing to talk with fellow customers, some of whom were skeptical about their newfound friendship. “You’re buddies?” an older man asked the congressmen, to which O’Rourke responded: “We’re becoming buddies.”

These unlikely buddies aren’t the only Members working to bridge partisan divides. Rep. Hurd, co-chair of the Millennial Action Project’s bipartisan Congressional Future Caucus, and Rep. O’Rourke, who has participated in the Aspen Institute Congressional Program – both of which promote efforts to connect Members of Congress with colleagues across the aisle – are just two of several recent examples.

Just two weeks ago, 28 Republican and 18 Democratic Freshman Members — representing red and blue states from coast to coast — signed a Commitment to Civility and spoke on the House floor about why they made this commitment, what their constituents had sent them to Washington to accomplish, and how civility is essential to working together across the aisle to achieve those goals. In all, 46 of the 52 new members signed the commitment, which urges productive dialogue and rejects the idea that political rivals are enemies.

And last week, the Bipartisan Policy Center hosted Republican and Democratic presidents of the House Freshmen class to discuss efforts by their class to work across the aisle to find common ground. At the event, Reps. Val Demings (D-FL) and Jack Bergman (R-MI) spoke about the class’s shared commitment sustain this effort, not not just in their first months in Washington, but as long as they are elected to serve.

Asked, “How can we help?” the Representatives responded, “Keep encouraging events like this.”

The bipartisan road trippers take Facebook Live questions.

As road trippers Hurd and O’Rourke return to the Capitol and their caucuses with 1,900 more miles of common ground behind them, chances are each knows a whole lot more about how the other wants to do this job of “representative” – and that their constituents do, too.

Packing Members of different parties into rental cars for 24-hour drives may not be a feasible way to find common ground on every issue, but Reps. Hurd & O’Rourke are one example of how actions can bridge Washington’s hyperpartisan divide. And the more constituents encourage Members of Congress to work together, the more they will do so.

Back to Ideas

Blog

“Do Not Give Up Hope” — Reflections from the Alabama Pilgrimage

Chris Crawford

March 14, 2017

Nearly every year since 1998, The Faith and Politics Institute has organized The Congressional Civil Rights Pilgrimage through Birmingham, Selma, and Montgomery, Alabama. As I witnessed earlier this month, this pilgrimage is a powerful journey for all those who attend. It is humbling to walk the path of civil rights heroes, and it is particularly powerful to take those steps alongside those who marched through Hell over 50 years ago. Democracy Fund is proud to support this opportunity for Members of Congress and other pilgrims to interact directly with past wounds in order to find common ground to build for the future.

Learning in ‘Bombingham’

Throughout the trip, we heard from people who experienced the tumult of change firsthand. During one such opportunity at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham – the sight of a bombing that killed four African-American girls in 1963, Faith and Politics President Joan Mooney hosted a panel with Carolyn McKinstry and Marian Daniel, both survivors of church bombings from an era in which these attacks were so frequent that Birmingham was known as “Bombingham”.

McKinstry and Daniel shared similar experiences of hearing loud bangs, buildings shaking, and feelings of sheer terror. They also shared a common outlook on how to move forward from tragedy. In the time since the bombing, both women have dedicated their lives to fighting for justice and reconciliation. As McKinstry has said in recent interviews, “It was the point at which I decided that I would try to do as much as I could to change the world. We could accomplish so much more with love and kindness.”

Dorothy Frazier, one of the campus organizers at Alabama State University during the Civil Rights era, has endured the longest path toward reconciliation. In his report on the pilgrimage in the Washington Post, Jonathan Capehart quoted Frazier:

“March 7th will forever stay with me,” said Dorothy Frazier, who was a student at Alabama State University in 1965, and was involved in protests in Montgomery. She revealed during the panel that she rarely talked about what happened and that she had a hard time forgiving. “How do I forgive,” Frazier asked, “how do you forgive people who want to kill you? I’m trying really, really, really, really hard.” But moments later, Frazier earned lengthy applause when she said, “Today, I think, while I’m speaking, I’m releasing the hate.”

History Comes Alive

On the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, pilgrims gathered to hear Representative John Lewis recount his experience from Bloody Sunday.

“We looked over the bridge and saw a sea of blue,” he said, referring to the Sheriff and dozens of citizens who were deputized by the sheriff’s department the evening before a march that was planned by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Following the fatal shooting of a civil rights activist by an Alabama State Trooper, they organized a march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. When they had only made it from Brown Chapel across Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma, the Sheriff ordered the marchers to stop, and they did.

However, when John Lewis, then just 25 years old, asked the Sheriff “May I have a word,” the police and posse responded with Billy clubs and tear gas, assaulting the marchers and chasing them back across the bridge.

The violence that ensued was captured on camera and projected to millions of Americans during the evening news, bearing witness to the brutality that the attackers let loose on peaceful protesters.

“I thought I was going to die on this bridge,” John Lewis told us, the scars from 1965 visible on his head as he spoke. “I was not afraid. But I thought I was going to die.”

Lewis challenged those on the bridge to find a way to work together to further the cause of equality.

“Do not give up hope! Do not give up hope,” he told the crowd. “It’s going to be hard. But do not give up.”

As Dr. McKinstry closed the programming on the bridge with a prayer, the enormity of what we had all just witnessed became ever clearer to those of us on the bridge. Some people dropped to their knees, others broke into tears. Some looked out into the distance over the water. But every person was amazed at the opportunity to stand on the bridge with John Lewis, and to hear his words about building a better future – even when the challenge is hard. Dr. McKinstry referred to the bridge as “sacred ground.” She was right.

Healing Divides, Bridging Differences

After dinner that evening, Peggy Wallace Kennedy, the daughter of former Alabama Governor George Wallace, delivered remarks at the Alabama Archives. She spoke about growing up in Governor’s Mansion and not understanding what her father was doing. Years later, she said, her son asked her why her father had supported such treatment toward African-Americans.

“I realized at that moment that I was at a crossroad in my life and the life of my son. The mantle had passed. And it was up to me to do for Burns what my father never did for me. It was the first step in my journey of building a legacy of my own. Maybe it will be up to you and me to make things right.”

In this critical time for our democracy, Members of Congress and the American people face this very same challenge: to make things right. Doing so will require members of Congress to work together and to find common ground, in the way that members of both parties did during the pilgrimage to Alabama. Speaking only for myself, I was haunted by the ways in which the lessons of Selma, Montgomery, and Birmingham are relevant today. The words of John Lewis, Peggy Wallace Kennedy, and many others showed the importance of learning these lessons from our past and working together to build a stronger future for our republic.

On the bridge that day, many of the Alabama pilgrims were moved to tears as they faced the brutality and scars of our past. In listening to Peggy Wallace Kennedy at the Alabama Archives, they realized the enormity of the challenge to “make things right.”

She challenged the Members of Congress and all others on the trip to “Stand up rather than stand by when justice for all is at stake.”

During a question-and-answer period after her speech, John Lewis began by thanking Kennedy.

He spoke slowly.

“Thank you for being you. You are my sister. I love you.”

Back to Ideas

Blog

Not Just a Buzzword: Civility is Key to Congressional Function

Betsy Wright Hawkings

March 6, 2017

The Freshman members of the 115th Congress know something we all know; the 2016 election was marked by some of the coarser political rhetoric of modern history, and not surprisingly left our country feeling more divided than ever.

More uniquely, they have taken an important first step toward doing something about it.

Last week, 28 Republican and 18 Democratic Freshman Members — representing red and blue states from coast to coast — signed a Commitment to Civility and spoke on the House floor about why they made this commitment, what their constituents had sent them to Washington to accomplish, and how civility is essential to working together across the aisle to achieve those goals. In all, 46 of the 52 new members signed the commitment, which urges productive dialogue and rejects the idea that political rivals are enemies.

Their civility statement cites the “…coarsening of our culture fueled too often by the vitriol in our politics and public discourse. One result has been a loss of trust in our institutions and elected officials.” Understanding that they will not always agree on matters of policy, they nevertheless agreed to “…strive at all times to maintain collegiality and the honor of the office.”

By doing this they believe they can help work more effectively, and even begin to restore the public’s trust in America’s institutions.

The significance of their effort cannot be overstated. To succeed, they will be working against deeply ingrained trends not just in our politics, but in our culture.

At Democracy Fund, we are working to reverse the dynamics that drive the lack of civility these Members of Congress are working to address. Our systems map on Congress and the Public Trust identifies the role that the lack of bipartisan relationships, reduced capacity of Congress as an institution to legislate based on facts, nationalized campaigns, reduced capacity of the media, and the lack of shared information through regular oversight all play in driving the hyper-partisanship that has led to the breakdown of civil relationships and legislative debate.

Many are familiar with the 1901 speech of President Theodore Roosevelt at the Minnesota State Fair, in which he summarized his approach to foreign policy by quoting the proverb, “Speak softly and carry a big stick — you will go far.” But as Roosevelt went on to note, “If a man continually blusters, if he lacks civility, a big stick will not save him from trouble … It is both foolish and undignified to indulge in undue self-glorification, and, above all, in loose-tongued denunciation of other peoples … I hope that we shall always strive to speak courteously and respectfully…”

A similar message, more remarkable for its time, was an 1861 speech in Cincinnati, Ohio by Abraham Lincoln, who noted in speaking to Northerners, “We mean to remember that [Southerners] are as good as we; that there is no difference between us other than the difference of circumstances. We mean to recognize and bear in mind always that (they) have as good hearts in (their) bosoms as other people, or as we claim to have.”

While Lincoln steadfastly opposed slavery, he was making the point that humility would go a long way toward maintaining civility with his Southern fellow countrymen, and support the shared desire to live again “in peace and harmony with one another.”

While we believe our time is not as divisive as the Civil War era, the need for civility is no less urgent, as the constituents of these freshman Members have made clear to their representatives. The signing of the Commitment to Civility by more Members of Congress — but more importantly, the practice of it — could go a long way toward reducing the hyper-partisanship that so many Americans say they want Congress and our President to put aside in the pursuit of the common good.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Transforming a Tradition: Rethinking Debates with Civic Hall

Tom Glaisyer

September 26, 2016

The 2016 election cycle has been described as unique or like no other. Clearly at the Presidential level this election has been unlike other recent cycles, but it is also remarkably different in another way: the public is getting much of their news beyond television broadcasts, and they are responding, sharing, and engaging with politics in ways they never have before.

It is this change in the nature of our communications that Civic Hall’s Rethinking Debates project seeks to explore. It does so, not blindly, nor in an “add technology and the world will be better” kind of way, but rather with the sense that given the opportunity to engage the public before, during, and after debates, we should use it to explore how people learn about candidates and their positions.

There is no question that the challenges for productive debates are significant. Political polarization in the United States is more pronounced. Americans now have shorter attention spans than a goldfish. The standard format of a televised debate has turned—despite the efforts of moderators no less experienced or skilled than in the past—into what one might describe as a three ring circus. The networks may be expecting massive viewership for the upcoming Presidential debates but its viewership that is partly driven by the sort of enthusiasm one has for a wrestling match rather than something Presidential. In a context where disillusionment within the electorate with politics and candidates is extensive it seems more likely that the debates will not inform, but incite, not engage, but aggravate, not clarify but confuse.

In spite of all that, debates continue to be a staple of the campaign season in many races. They are seen as a key test of a candidate, intellectually, temperamentally, even a candidates’ body language and wardrobe choices become the subject of countless post-debate news clips.

Several groups are working on this challenge. The Annenberg Public Policy Center formed a working group and issued a report advocating for multiple innovations in the debates. The Open Debate Coalition has also been advocating for specific reforms around the debate format. Democracy Fund’s grantee, the National Institute for Civil Discourse, also recently issued civility standards for candidate debates. Politifact will undoubtedly be fact-checking the claims made during the debate and the Internet Archive, also a grantee, is using its capacity to help journalists and the public see how TV covers debates.

The Democracy Fund’s Public Square Program focuses specifically on supporting efforts to help people understand and participate in the democratic process. We invested in Civic Hall’s work because, as their new report reminds us: “The debates are [the public’s] one opportunity in the campaign to see and hear the candidates speak directly to each other in a face-to-face encounter.”

In their extensive report, “Rethinking Debates: A Report On Increasing Engagement,” and at their recent mini-conference, Civic Hall brought together experts to explore technologies and platforms that have the potential to strengthen debates, increase their relevance, and ensure they continue to be central, but in different ways than in the past.

A few of the most promising ideas include:

CNN’s use of a technologically advanced auditorium and polling of an in-person audience to add nuance and immediate responses that could be fed back into the debate via the moderator seemed to successfully pair the strengths of a moderator and an advanced facility.
Google’s election hub, a platform developed in collaboration with Watchout a local organization in Taiwan. The platform allowed the public to generate questions for Presidential candidates. It elicited 6,500 questions that generated 220,000 votes and 5 questions were used in the debates.
At a state level: In New York, Silicon Harlem hosted a debate and utilized Microsoft’s Pulse tool and the above mentioned Open Debates Coalition had their question generation tool adopted for a debate in Florida. Both provided opportunities for the public in the United States to become more engaged in driving the questions used prior to and during the debate.

We hope that as this debate season gets underway we will see more examples both at the state and local and perhaps at the Presidential level that will be new models to follow if we’re to better serve the American public as they consider who they wish to vote for.

Click here to learn more about Civic Hall’s Rethinking Debates Project.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Bridging the Bicoastal Bubbles on Civic Tech

Chris Nehls

September 12, 2016

For all of their enormous clout globally, Washington and the San Francisco Bay Area can be pretty insular places. It’s a dynamic that’s reinforced by the know-it-all attitude of the dominant professional class of each. Washingtonians working in governmental circles think nobody understands politics like they do, while Bay Area tech professionals claim to be transforming humanity through lines of code.

I recently had the opportunity to travel to the Bay Area in an effort organized by the Lincoln Initiative to bring these two dynamic but distant communities closer together. They actually have much more in common than it seems: Plenty of Bay Area technologists are deeply passionate about government and politics, while D.C. supports a vibrant and growing civic tech scene. But the bicoastal bubbles still have a lot to learn from one another.

The Lincoln Initiative invited me and other D.C.-types on a tour of several Bay Area civic and political tech firms, including Crowdpac and Brigade. The leaders of these start-ups demonstrated a deep commitment for improving American politics by making public participation easier and more satisfying. They have developed sophisticated new online tools designed to draw more people into the political system and make it easier to find and organize like-minded fellow citizens. The scale of their ambition to help Americans re-engage with the democratic system is inspiring.

I was struck along my tour by how the tools these firms were developing focused on a single critical problem within the current political system, whether it be the dominance of mega-donors in campaign finance or the difficulty of building networks of like-minded voters. In the context of the Silicon Valley bubble’s fondness for elevator pitches of business plans, this makes sense (Brigade’s Matt Mahan, for example, described Brigade as the “LinkedIn for politics.”)

But few in Washington would take the approach that the difficulties of effective governance at the federal level can be solved by a killer app. Our system of government is shaped by countless competing priorities and power dynamics. Simply adding more of something to (or taking it out from) the system is unlikely to generate much change in a modern democracy.

Democracy Fund’s Governance Program, for example, learned in the process of constructing our systems map that problems of campaign finance and civic engagement combine with other factors to affect the performance of the federal system in complex ways. As some D.C.-based civic tech firms and nonprofits believe, there may be greater leverage in improving the responsiveness of federal politics by focusing first on solutions that can strengthen government institutions. Without doing so, devising new online tools to amplify the public’s voice simply adds more noise to an already cacophonous system.

Congress can be a peculiar and frustrating place. The perspective of Washington insiders can help Silicon Valley create tools that align with how the institution really works and how members and staff do their jobs. With this awareness, the enormous technical talent present in the Bay Area can better be brought to bear on the challenges facing our democracy.

The work of bridging the bicoastal bubbles on civic tech by groups like the Lincoln Initiative is a great first step in this effort. Hopefully in the near future, techies can leave their own bubbles and head east.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Deconstructing Congressional Dysfunction: A Systems-based Approach

Betsy Wright Hawkings

April 11, 2016

In my years of service on Capitol Hill, I saw first hand that Congress is full of good people driven to make our world a better place. Yet for far too many Americans, Congress is not fulfilling its responsibilities as a representative body. Why? And can it be helped?

The Democracy Fund’s Governance Initiative spent much of the past year seeking to understand how Congress could better respond to the needs and demands of citizens. To explore how we might better understand the systems that drive Congress, we began with the framing question, “How is Congress fulfilling or failing to fulfill its obligations to the American people?”

It didn’t take long to conclude that the institution is failing to do so.

Using the work of our funding partner, the Madison Initiative of the Hewlett Foundation, as a base, we pursued the broad and substantive question of what dynamics are the most significant in contributing to this dysfunction. Through that understanding, we can start to piece together what can be done to address them.

To that end, we’ve published the first public iteration of our systems map, Congress and Public Trust. We have been gathering feedback from a wide-range of stakeholders, and welcome additional thinking and ideas.

Mapping Congress and Public Trust

Last Spring, we convened a group of experts on Congress—scholars, former members of Congress and staff, and active supporters of the institution—who helped us explore the key narratives that drive the system. A ‘core story’ quickly emerged.

Core Story Loop: Congress and Public Trust

With expanded access to and use of the Internet by the public, communications to Congress have dramatically accelerated. The money infusing politics intensifies the pressures on an institution ill-prepared to process, let alone interpret and meet them, further weakening congressional capacity and reducing satisfaction of both among members and the public at large. This has contributed to trust in the institution falling to an all-time low.

With growth in dissatisfaction, some citizens “double down” to increase pressure on leaders, but the public is increasingly “opting out” and disengaging from the system—leaving only the loudest, shrillest, and most polarizing voices to feed the hyper-partisanship characterizing our current politics. Congress, conceived in Article One of our Constitution as the leading branch of our federal government, is becoming irrelevant to an increasing number of Americans.

Our Congress and Public Trust map describes the factors that are intensifying this process, inside and outside the institution. A long stretch of voter dissatisfaction and important demographic shifts within the two-party system have led to increasing intensity of competition for majorities in Congress. This historic level of competition has led the parties to stake out more stark ideological differences, driving their partisan constituencies further apart philosophically. As the parties and their constituents have fewer ideas in common, hyper-partisan behavior within the electorate and among those elected to Congress increases, winnowing the possibility for compromise and dragging down congressional function.

At the same time, the institution’s ability to formulate thoughtful, cooperative policy solutions has diminished. Some members (and many challengers) have responded to decreased public satisfaction by running against Washington, demonizing the institution, and reducing the institution’s resources to the breaking point. Loss of institutional expertise exacerbated by increased staff turnover has weakened policy-making capacity and increased the influence of outside experts, some of whom also proffer campaign donations. In fact, money flows throughout our systems map, depicted by factors with green halos. Further research through creation of another systems map focused on money and politics is forthcoming and will be aimed at deepening our understanding of this phenomenon.

Where do we go from here?

OK, you say. We know Congress isn’t working well; public dissatisfaction is at an all-time high and politics is as nasty as it has ever been. This map basically depicts a death spiral. What do we do about it?

A systems map helps identify leverage opportunities—places where smaller levels of effort lead to disproportionate impact. And leverage opportunities inform strategy. As we work to identify leverage opportunities and develop strategy, several themes are emerging.

First, despite this story of profound dysfunction, there are bright spots within the system. Many members of Congress and their staffs still possess what we call “servant’s hearts,” meaning they are driven by a call to public service. We know staff and members want to be effective, despite being stuck in a cycle of diminished resources. We also see a bright spot in the ability of outside partners to help Congress become more efficient and effective—to “work smarter.” As a result, we are thinking about how we can best support and empower servants’ hearts across the institution by more effectively enabling substantive work and deliberation.

Second, we believe that the institution’s failure to respond to increasing communication is driving public dissatisfaction and disengagement. We cannot simply invite greater public engagement without making sure Congress has strengthened its ability to respond. Without these investments first, we risk further alienating those we are trying to re-engage.

We have to ask, therefore, how we can help Congress develop more efficient tools to listen to the public, process the overwhelming amount of information, and invite more interaction from constituent groups, all while better managing the volume of communications from advocacy groups.

Third, once Congress’s capacity to listen and respond to the public is increased, can we help members and staff build a more functional culture that responds less reflexively to fear, elevating the leadership strength of members and staff? Members currently have too little incentive to act beyond partisan teamsmanship. Are there interventions we can make to help alleviate some of the political pressure members feel and encourage them to better withstand hyper-partisan heat? Can we help them find courage to cooperate across the aisle and strengthen bipartisan relationships that offer a foundation for institutional progress?

Finally, the cost of running for office has risen exponentially, driven by pressures from the political system we call the “Political-Industrial Complex.” Our map clearly illustrates how the need to raise campaign funds ripples across the congressional system. Reducing the amount of time spent by members fundraising would free them to focus more on legislation and remove some partisan invective from their messaging. We also see a potential bright spot using emerging campaign techniques that rely on cheaper media, and are considering exploring whether, if accelerated, they could disrupt the dominance of the political-industrial complex by reducing money on the demand side of its predominant business model.

We are knee deep in strategy development work and have some distance to go. We expect that as we continue to learn our analysis will evolve. In fact, learning and evolution is the essence of understanding the system, because by definition, it is always changing. It is our hope that by collaborating with partners across the field, existing grantees, and most importantly, with Congress itself, the Democracy Fund can play a constructive role in helping strengthen the institution and our democracy as a whole.

You can explore the map and its elements here. As you do, we hope you will tell us how to better describe and illuminate the dynamics of the Congress and Public Trust system. Please email us at congressmap@democracyfund.org to share your feedback or related resources.

Back to Ideas

Blog

New ‘Healthy Congress’ Report Shows Signs of Hope

Betsy Wright Hawkings

February 2, 2016

Just over 18 months ago, the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) published recommendations by its Commission on Political Reform (CPR) to address the hyper-partisanship characterizing American politics.

BPC initiated its Healthy Congress Index last year to measure progress on several key issues, including the number of days Congress spends in session; the openness of the Senate debate and amendment process; and the strength of “regular order” in the congressional committee process, floor debate, and conference committees.

This week—on the heels of the Republican congressional retreat designed to outline priorities and issues for the remainder of the 114th Congress—BPC released its latest quarterly assessment of Congress’s ability to effectively govern.

The diagnosis? There are signs of hope, but still too little function in the system.

Based on the metrics of the Index, even with the upheaval of a new Speaker, the 114th Congress has made some progress. The ability of committees to make policy and resolve differences has improved.

The number of days the House and Senate were in session fell short of the CPR’s recommendations and House Rules still allowed for fewer amendments to be offered, but the Senate spent more days working in Washington.

The Senate also considered many more amendments compared with recent years—bearing out Majority Leader McConnell’s stated desire to return to “regular order.”

At the recent GOP retreat, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Leader McConnell outlined their respective plans for the year. These included a more ambitious policy agenda on Ryan’s part, and a shared commitment by the two leaders to return to a more functional Congress—one that exercises its power of the purse on time in the annual appropriations process, conducts more effective oversight, and produces agreements on key legislation. These are also positive signs.

Time will tell whether they will be able to deliver—and whether we will continue to see progress in BPC’s “Healthy Congress” assessment—in the coming election year.

Back to Ideas

Blog

The Governance Program One Year Later

Betsy Wright Hawkings

December 14, 2015

Looking back at my first year at the Democracy Fund, I can say working with a group of people truly committed to engaging the whole political spectrum is a remarkable and educational experience—beyond anything I could have imagined.

Since I joined the Democracy Fund, the Governance Program has been working to develop new approaches to understanding our nation’s system of governance as well as the forces of hyperpartisanship that currently render the system unable to function effectively. Nearly one year on, I can say working with a group of people representing all sides of the political spectrum has been challenging but productive.

For me, the chance to combine a quarter century of Hill experience with systems thinking to more deeply understand the system of Congress—and where the greatest opportunities to reduce dysfunction exist—has been unique. The space to build a team within the Governance Program of individuals equally committed to the more effective functioning of government has been rewarding. And the ability to foster collaboration among existing organizations, help new innovative organizations expand, and encourage them all to collaborate to deepen their impact in the space has been truly energizing.

Among the challenges we have faced has been developing a strategy that reflects our knowledge and our values while continuing our grantmaking practice in an effort to impact the urgent challenges we hope to address. Described fondly within Democracy Fund as “building the plane while flying it,” we are grateful to have metaphorically experienced pilots and mechanics on board to help us stay in the air. This infrastructure has enabled the Governance team to support our colleagues by attracting partners that reflect the ideological diversity of the American people, as reflected in their elected officials; develop and support new programs to help build relationships among members of Congress and their staffs; develop technology to enhance congressional constituent engagement systems; identify best practices and train congressional offices to more fully utilize them; and create strategies to advance efforts to “fix Washington” by creating more open and accessible legislative processes, all while developing and refining our strategic plan.

Looking forward to the next year, the Governance Program is working with a range of stakeholders to ask some hard questions. Specifically: How can we build on our existing approach to not only support existing organizations, but incentivize innovation as well? How can we support the institution of Congress by strengthening its operating systems and processes? How can we expand the ability of those who work in Congress to use those systems more effectively? And, how can we incentivize government officials, specifically members of Congress, to behave in ways that increase the functionality of government, support bipartisan working relationships, and reward civility?

We know the answers aren’t easy. But we’ve known that all along. It took us a generation to achieve this state of dysfunction; it will take more than a year and many voices, organizations, and public officials to solve the challenges. After all, the essence of systems thinking is that with so many variables, and so many interrelationships, the system is constantly changing and the work is never really done.

At the Democracy Fund, we are working to walk the walk when it comes to bipartisanship in our organization and in the field we are seeking to build as we work to strengthen our system of government.

All in all, a pretty good year, and even more exciting learning to look forward to.