Bipartisan Policy Center: No silver bullet to making Congress more popular than zombies, witches

TOPEKA — Republican U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall, Democratic U.S. Rep. Sharice Davids and their Kansas peers work in an institution of the federal government less popular than colonoscopies, traffic jams, cockroaches, the Internal Revenue Service, Brussel sprouts, zombies and witches.

Michael Thorning, director of structural democracy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and J.D. Rackey, a senior policy analyst for the not-for-profit organization in Washington, D.C., visited the Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas to explore solutions to partisan dysfunction and policy gridlock in Congress that has driven public dissatisfaction for decades.

“I only fear that the situation has gotten worse for Congress, not better,” said Thorning, referring to results of Public Policy Polling. “It’s an unfortunate thing. The reality is that I think people feel pretty glib and cynical about Congress.”

Marshall and Davids, as well as the four other members of state’s congressional delegation, hold front-row seats to recycling of budget conflict, government shutdowns, intraparty and partisan feuding, violent political rhetoric, petty displays of contempt and leadership on a knife’s edge.

The prevailing culture has derailed important reform legislation, even proposals earning bipartisan sponsors. Look no further than demise of the compromise immigration bill earlier this year that was spiked with a few telephone calls by former President Donald Trump to Republican lawmakers. Undercutting solutions to problems of interest to voters reflected a brand of congressional behavior that would irritate the late U.S. Sen. Robert Dole of Kansas. He was a Republican known for working to move the needle in Washington through bipartisan negotiation and compromise.

“Senator Dole really was a strong institutionalist who believed in a Congress that functioned, that represented people and that got things done,” Thorning said.

Thorning said the political core of Capitol Hill had been damaged, and many of the 435 representatives and 100 senators acknowledged that reality.

“By and large, members are not happy with how Congress is being run,” Thorning said. “That’s a left and right, bipartisan agreement on that.”

Rackey said coming to terms with problems in Congress would require a step-by-step overhaul of personal attitudes about obligations of the job.

“Our main point is always there are no silver bullets,” he said. “It’s going to take lots and lots of changes from lots of different directions.”

Rackey served on the staff of the U.S. House’s Select Committee on the Modernization, which was formed in 2019 and unusually had an equal number of Republicans and Democrats as members. Approval of reform proposals required two-thirds majority votes of the committee. After four years and 49 meetings, the committee had adopted 202 recommendations. So far, 71 have been implemented and 50 were in the process of adoption.

Much of the committee’s focus was on improving the basic operational capacity of members of Congress and their employees. The committee advanced ideas for retaining and hiring experienced congressional staff, given the typical length of service of three and five years. Ideas for softening partisanship underlying orientation sessions for new members were hatched.

The restoration of budget earmarks for members helped draw down division. It wasn’t until recently Congress implemented a calendar portal that included all meetings relevant to members.

Rackey said obstacles to change included the politically popular notion of portraying Congress as the boogeyman for failings of parties or individuals.

That narrative made it difficult to justify spending tax dollars on deepening congressional staffing and operational capacity, he said.

“The other is that institutional incentives are often overridden by partisan incentives. The Founders intended that the Congress would check the executive branch. Ambition counteracting ambition, but … when your party controls a chamber of Congress and the White House that kind of creates a different incentive for action to move your partisan agenda rather than think about your role of Congress versus the president,” he said.

Substantive reforms, including term limits on federal House and Senate members, failed to gain traction due to apprehension about increasing the number of novice lawmakers mingling with deep-pocket lobbyists and heavy-handed party leaders.

“If you’re an inexperienced legislator, it’s a lot easier for your own party leadership to sort of take advantage of you and roll your vote on an issue the way they want it to go,” Thorning said.

He said interest among members of Congress in substantive reform could depend on who held the White House.

“We worked on what we thought were really bipartisan efforts, for instance, during the Trump administration to change some of the executive powers around national emergencies,” Thorning said. “Probably won’t surprise you, but Democrats were very gung-ho about that during the Trump administration. When Joe Biden got to office basically none of them really were interested in talking about it anymore. So you have this … merry-go-round effect.”