No, Congress is Not Broken
No, Congress is Not Broken
Jeffrey Crouch, American University
Congress is far from broken, which becomes clear when observing several aspects of the institution. Consider its background: the Founders “deliberately created a lawmaking process that was slow, even cumbersome,” argues legal scholar Cynthia R. Farina. This dynamic may not be welcome in twenty-first century America, with its wide range of public policy challenges and short attention span, but in this sense, the system is what it always has been.
A common criticism of the modern Congress is that its members are too polarized to work together. To the contrary, explains political scientist Francis Lee, “Congress is not in gridlock.” Despite this reality, an ongoing media storyline playing up legislative gridlock continues to circulate anyway, she contends. A trend toward omnibus bills may create the appearance of fewer bills becoming law, but plenty of legislation is still being produced, she argues. Also, working across the aisle is not as newsworthy as disagreement, she notes. When Congress needs to work more efficiently, it has shown it can, and Lee cites as proof several major laws passed in “a frenzied lawmaking pace” in the 117th Congress, such as the Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan.
What about congressional popularity? For a broken institution, members of Congress seem to weather Election Day quite well despite conflicting impulses among voters. Political scientist Richard Fenno’s famous “paradox” holds that Americans have positive feelings about their own member of Congress but feel less affection for the institution of Congress. The legislature may not be popular, but “few things in life are more predictable” than the likelihood of an incumbent lawmaker being regularly returned to Congress, as OpenSecrets.org observes. If the system is so broken, why do voters keep sending the same representatives back to Washington, DC?
Technology has changed our world in recent decades, and Congress has not escaped the revolution. For example, C-SPAN cameras have been a feature of the House chamber since 1979, and in the twenty-first century, they are right in line with modern society’s expectations. Despite their downsides, these cameras provide a glimpse inside this previously insulated institution and fit well into a world of smartphones, the internet, social media, and other technological advances. Members of Congress and the public now have a variety of ways to stay connected, including email, websites, social media, and more. Technology also makes it easier for the political parties to coordinate one message and offer a “team” for voters to reject or support.
Critics lament the rise of congressional districts dominated by one party or the other, but one-party districts are nothing new. In fact, a new Pew Research Center study found that, from 1922 to 2020, “in any given election, the vast majority of House districts are won by the party that already holds them.” And as for delegating its responsibilities to executive agencies, Congress is doing what it must amid a chaotic schedule. In the 118th Congress, House members introduced over 10,000 bills. As the late former Rep. Al Swift (D-WA) used to point out, “members of Congress are laymen, not experts.” As such, they need to rely on the executive branch to implement, in specific circumstances, the general laws passed by the legislature.
In sum, Congress was created to deliberate—speed was not the priority. What may appear to be gridlock in recent years is a distortion of reality caused by an evolution in how bills are passed and the media’s need for dramatic stories. Overall, Congress is far from flawless, but it is performing better than is often commonly believed.