A Congress Divided

Twelve percent. That’s the portion of the country that approve of the job Congress is doing, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll. Lack of faith in its competence has led politicians, pundits, and ordinary citizens alike to claim that Congress is “broken.” Incumbents in Congress face increasingly difficult re-election bids and the government has neared shutdown multiple times due to an inability to compromise. As Rep. Mike Michaud (D-ME) told the HPR, “parties have decided that partisan politics takes precedence over putting the country first.” This polarization has been fueled by the infusion of large-dollar donors in congressional elections and the decrease of nonpartisan political news sources. As members of Congress have been pushed to the ends of the political spectrum, there are few moderates left in the middle willing to compromise.
Big Money and Partisan Rhetoric
Since 1980, congressional campaign spending has tripled, reaching an unprecedented $1.5 billion in the 2008 elections. Loosened regulations, combined with an influx in spending by lobbyists, political action committees, and corporations, have awarded interests groups more leverage with their donations. Some members of Congress dismiss the influence of the dollars that interests groups bring to candidates. Rep. Allen West (R-FL), a member of the Tea Party Caucus, told the HPR that his average campaign contribution in 2010 was ninety dollars. He believes that big money support “balances out at the end of the day,” as constituents want their elected officials to be a “representative voice” in Congress. Others like Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) believe that the weight of “big money” interests is the primary reason for congressional dysfunction, telling the HPR that,  “our forefathers would [never] have ever imagined that money would have this kind of an impact on the national debate.”
The role of money, however, does not end once a candidate is elected. A fundamental shift has occurred in the fundraising strategy of incumbent members of Congress. Christina Bellantoni, associate politics editor at Roll Call, explained, “The more inflammatory you are, the more money you raise. In 2008, when Michele Bachmann said Barack Obama had un-American views, it was not good for her overall, but she was able to raise a lot of money.” Bellantoni notes that the prevalence of strategy on both sides of the aisle, citing former Democratic congressman Alan Grayson as someone who knew “how to make people mad and raise a lot of money.”
As politicians adjust their rhetoric to attract donors, media outlets have followed a similar calculus. According to Rep. Pingree, American politics “is without a doubt about politicians and the media responding to sources of money, not what their constituents are feeling.” Polls by Rasmussen Reports have revealed that viewers perceive a conservative bias in Fox News. Similarly, MSNBC has been forthright in declaring its political progressivism. Such partiality may reflect networks’ quest for ratings; studies have shown that news viewers are more likely to frequent a news source that shares their ideology. Bellantoni described how “people can turn on MSNBC and watch Rachel Maddow, and say ‘Hey, she’s more liberal than me.’” Instead of seeking nonpartisan and unbiased news sources, the public prefers news that will reaffirm existing political beliefs.
Polarized Congress, Polarized Electorate?
The influences of big money and the partisan media have created an environment in which Congress is less willing to work across party lines. Emily Ekins, a Cato Institute research fellow, explained to the HPR, “There is little overlap between political parties nowadays, and there is more disagreement on what policies actually work.” Economic uncertainty and the election of more ideologically extreme candidates have caused a deep ideological divide. Rep. Michaud, who feels both parties are equally to blame for the “partisan bickering” in Congress, says that, “if we had leaders who were willing to work things out… that would make a big difference.” Whether exhibited in the debate over health care reform or the ongoing budget negotiations, members of Congress have found difficulty in distancing themselves from the fiery rhetoric of talk-show hosts and the interests of their donors. As Rep. Michaud opined, part of the frustration we see in the electorate today is “reflective of the health care bill that passed,” and the partisan means by which it gained passage.
This factionalism, however, may not be exclusive to lawmakers. Recently, David Gergen, professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, penned an editorial for CNN in which he suggested that the partisan Congress might merely reflect the “fractured” country it represents. Such a view would suggest that, rather than blaming external factors or elected officials, constituents should first take a long look at their own actions. For example, David King, professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, cites “decline in turnout for primaries” as a leading cause of the increased polarization.
Crossing the Dire Straits
Given America’s frustration with the climate in Washington, some members of Congress see opportunities for collaboration and progress. As Rep. Pingree told the HPR, “I do not think that the voting in the country today represents what the average voter feels.” Rather, the Congresswoman largely blames gridlock on the moneyed interests pervading Congress. Stephen Erickson, executive director of Americans United to Rebuild Democracy, views these interests in an even more negative light, and told the HPR that he feels our congressional system is one “based on extortion and bribery” and that “every piece of legislation that passes through Congress is tainted by this system.”
Erickson, whose organization promotes clean elections, term-limits, and an end to gerrymandering, said that one of the main problems today is that “our politicians are thinking too much about their next reelection, and not enough about the next generation.” In advocating for term limits, Erickson sees them as solving the current problem of “virtually all incentives in the system serving narrow interests or short-term interests.” Rep. West agrees with Erickson’s analysis, saying that the “Founding Fathers didn’t intend for politics to be a career.”
While some are critical of proposed reforms “fix” Congress, it is evident that various factors have aggravated the broken state of Congress. As King told the HPR, one “could point to anything and make a reasonable argument that it is a cause” of its current state. While there is no easy solution, tackling the root causes of Congressional dysfunction, such as ideological polarization through the influences of money and the media are essential to moving forward. As Bellantoni opined, an ultimate fix to the system will be incredibly difficult, “People are rewarded for being polarizing, and as long as that’s the case, I don’t see any change happening.”