Congress: the "broken branch"

Congress is complicated: annoyingly so. As if the state of our bicameral legislature couldn’t be any less responsive, this is further complicated by the fact that Congress is really the institutional title of a series of committees that run the functions of the legislative branch. With titles such as Appropriations Committee or Education and Labor Committee, standing committees and a few other special committees dominate the process of proposing and arguing over legislature and bills. The actions of these committees reflect the personal motives of the members of Congress that just so happen to coincide with the desires of a representative’s constituency.

Only two real facts are certain about Congress. It is almost an undisputed reality that primary reason that Representatives run for a position in the House (or in the Senate for Senators) is in a quest for personal power. Congress is a stepping-stone for many individuals with hopes of eventually holding jobs as higher-ups in Congress or in one of the various bureaucratic departments. Many presidents were congressmen before heading up the executive branch. The benefits of being a congressman are often what cause representatives and senators to fervently spend millions of dollars on campaign acts even if reelection is relatively secure. Reelection ties into the second truism that is incumbents running for reelection almost never lose to challengers since incumbents, people who currently hold a position, have access to money, PACs and special rights designated under the Constitution exclusive Congress members. The only real way for a person to get a seat in the House or Senate is if a Congressperson retires or has done something totally out of favor among the constituents in his/her state (for Senators) or congressional district (for Representatives) and is not voted back into Congress. The fact that personal power is the motivating factor for members of Congress is an issue that is debated over. There are both critics and proponents of the institution of Congress as well as the individuals who make up Congress.

When I picture a Congress at work, I think of a bunch of old guys in suits voting yea or nay during a roll-call vote. Instead, the real work of Congress is done in separate committees headed by a chairman. In Congressional Government Woodrow Wilson says, “ Each Committee goes its own way at its own pace. It is impossible to discover any unity or method in the disconnected and therefore unsystematic, confused, and desultory action of the House, or any common purpose in the measures, which its Committees from time to time recommend… It is this multiplicity of leaders, this many-headed leadership, which makes the organization of the House too complex to afford uniformed people and unskilled observers any easy clue to its methods of rule” (American Government: Readings and Cases p. 332).Apparently, Congress has not changed too much from the beginning of the twentieth century. The real work is done not on the floor but in the offices of the committees.

The intricacies of Congress are disillusioning to many normal Americans, which contributes to the relative ease of which a representative can maintain an electoral base in his congressional district. If the people can’t follow how Congress works, they are either happy or unsatisfied with their Representative with very little in between. This allows Representatives to further dissolve the institution of Congress by intentionally staying vague on “position-taking” issues while focusing primarily on casework and pork barreling for support.

I feel that the tactics of Representatives are not necessarily altruistic but I do think that Congress is and has been an institution shrouded in obscurity and that constituents are left out of the picture as a result. In my opinion this detracts from the representation and consideration of constituents within the House. It is normal for a person to want to become better or accumulate power, but to the degree that one forgets his/her roots is ignorant and misleading.

With self-interest as the driving force behind congressional politicians, committee government is the only way to appease all of them. With each member having a unique role in a committee, it gives them a sense of exclusive power away from the 435 other representatives. In Congress and the Quest for Power, Lawrence C. Dodd critically argues that the fragmentation of Congress to satisfy the personal power struggles among Representatives is the source of all of the immobility and inefficiency within Congress. He says, “Because members are in a quest for power, not simply reelection, they generally will seek to serve on committees whose function and policy focus allow the broadest personal impact on policy” (American Government: Readings and Cases p. 347). Ultimately, Representatives want what is best for them, but, like the checks and balances within the government itself, it is in a Representatives best interest to ensure reelection. What Dodd says is that in reality, reelection is less of a controlling factor that constituents think they have access to. Contrarily, Dodd says that once a Representative is in, there in for a while. Remember, incumbents usually stay incumbent. What this means is that there comes a time where a Representative (or Senate though I get the feeling that the Senate is a little less scandalous based on their numbers and priorities as well as their broad constituency?) becomes comfortable with his electoral base back home. His complacency causes him or her to shift their attention from securing votes to “climbing the ladder” of power within the hierarchy of Congress. This is the time, Dodd says, that any legitimacy a Representative had sort of goes out the window.

I have to agree with Dodd that the fragmentation of Congress with committees as well as the self-interest of Congressmen is a problem that is falsely justified as preventing the power of legislation to fall in the hands of a few leaders. Within this system, there still exists a hierarchy (seniority is an example of this) and the real result is a lack of accountability or responsibility. Committees are a way for Representatives to look busy in the eyes of his constituents while maintaining a low degree of duty. I think there is some value and truth to the article but it seems way too critical. This may have been Dodd’s intent, but his opinions of Congress seem to come through so much that one questions the validity and basis of his argument. There are definitely problems with Congress, but I think Dodd uses extremes too much and sounds like a cynic. If a federal institution were this universally flawed, how could it go unnoticed by the public and other branches for so long?

The most important issue that Dodd brings up is his idea of a cyclical pattern of behavior between Congress and the executive branch (including the bureaucracy). He sets the scene by summarizing what he has been getting at in his article by saying, “…the irony of committee government is that it attempts to satisfy members’ individual desires for personal power by dispersing congressional authority so widely that the resulting institutional impotence cripples the ability of Congress to perform its constitutional roles, thereby dissipating the value of internal congressional power” (American Government: Readings and Cases p.353). With this, he questions the “structural” integrity of Congress. He speaks of the relationship between Congress and the president by saying, “ …organizational dynamics within Congress, and external relations of Congress to the president, have a “cyclical” pattern. At the outset, when politicians in a quest for national power first enter Congress, they decentralize power and create committee government. Decentralization is followed by severe problems of congressional decision-making, presidential assumption of legislative prerogatives, and an eventual presidential assault on Congress itself. Congress reacts by reforming its internal structure…to circumscribe presidential action…problems will become so severe that Congress will be forced to undertake centralizing reforms… presidents begin to cooperate so as to defuse the congressional counterattack…As immediate threat to congressional prerogatives recedes, members of Congress…become preoccupied with their immediate careers and press once again for greater power dispersal within Congress and removal of centralizing once again for greater power dispersal within Congress” (American Government: Readings and Cases p. 354). Since I have little experience with politics or political philosophy, I can’t think of examples to prove this however, if this is true, Congress is in a constant struggle with the president for legislative power and it seems like they only centralize their efforts when challenged by the president. I have more faith in Congress.

I feel that the best arguments about Congress and its motives are made Morris P. Fiorina in The Rise of the Washington Establishment. Here, Fiorina argues that the fact that Congressmen live from election to election is moot because either way, a Representatives chance for success lies in the hands of the Constituents. Even if a Representative does not take strong positions or do a stellar job in the House, he benefits the constituents via casework or pork barreling. Both of which center around the idea of a Representative helping his congressional district by spending, improving, or building something that benefits his/her constituents. It’s a safe political move (meaning a lot to gain but little to lose) and its easy and effective. So what if there is no genuine proof that this Representative is destined to be the next Speaker of the House, the fact is that in an attempt to gain more power, the Representative has to help the constituents out in some way. Though gaining power is the main goal, the focus of an incumbent becomes casework projects or mediating the requests from the local level and enacting change on a federal level. Personal power lies in reelection, which becomes the main focus of the candidate even if his/her attention to their constituents is somewhat superficial. People like to see tangible evidence of improvement.

As Richard F. Fenno, Jr. suggests in If, as Ralph Nader says, Congress is “The Broken Branch.” How Come We Love Our Congressmen So Much? the institution of Congress is often criticized by our fluctuating standards, but we have to remember that the institution is made of individuals. I don’t think there is any one party to blame for the problems that exist in Congress. The institution is slow but accommodates the complex motives of the Representatives in a way that has few alternatives. The result is tedious legislation. Congressmen are in competition with each other to get the best positions in the committees. The result is also tedious legislation. Fenno makes a good point while playing the blame game. He says, “To some degree, then, our judgments on Congress are negative because we change our minds frequently concerning the kind of Congress” (American Government: Readings and Cases p.360). The fluctuating demands and expectations we have of Congress and its members also fuel the tension that already exists in the institution.

This idea of shared responsibility is made explicit in The Rise of the Washington Establishment when Fiorina writes, “ We admire the politicians who courageously adopt the aloof role of the disinterested statesman, but we vote for those politicians who follow our wished and do us favors… Each of us wishes to receive a maximum government efficiency, on the one hand, but it also suggests mutual exploitation on the other” (American Government: Readings and Cases p. 336). This, I feel, is the most accurate argument made out of all of the writers on Congress. Viewing the actions of our flawed Congressmen working in a flawed system can cause us to be over critical, like Lawrence C. Dodd. In fact, Fiorina states that we do the exact same thing in our own personal attempts to gain power. This “mutual exploitation” then is not unique to one part of Congress, but to all parties involved (constituents, congressmen/women, and the institution itself). Though the motives may be questionable, and the process arduous and imperfect, Congress does make the lives of the constituents better though sometimes this is not directly through the legislation produced.

Though casework and pork barreling aren’t thought of as the most glamorous side of a Congresspersons job, it creates a connection between the politician and those he/she represents in a way that position taking and credit claiming can’t. The self-interest motivation becomes dependent on reelection, which forces the candidate to listen and take action based on the constituents needs. To improve efficiency in Washington though, I feel that there needs to be revision in the structure of the committees and the bill proposal process in order to be more accommodating to the realities and imperfections of humans. Not all Congressmen are out to become president, but they are very busy. To see both Houses improve by becoming more coherent and less individualistic among their fellow Congresspersons would be a great improvement in the efficiency and reputation of Congress.

-John