Politico Magazine: When Impeachment Meets a Broken Congress

[Massdriver]

The most essential branch of the U.S. government is collapsing before our eyes—right as it faces a historic showdown.

Quote

 

Abigail Spanberger catapults herself out of a chair, yanks on two desk drawers and pinches a stack of white notecards, plopping them onto the table between us. The gust of activity is a bit disorienting. We’ve been talking for all of two minutes, just long enough to state the preface for my forthcoming line of inquiry—whether the U.S. Congress is utterly hopeless, an irresponsible and dysfunctional body of unserious lawmakers with a talent only for self-preservation—but already the 40-year-old Spanberger seems distracted. Now she plunges both hands into her purse, grasping for a writing utensil as I venture a simple, sheepish question for the CIA operative turned freshman congresswoman: Does she realize what she’s gotten herself into?

 

“So many thoughts running through my mind,” Spanberger says, gazing past me with a wince, tapping her pen on the table. The Democrat representing Virginia’s 7th District, it seems, has been waiting for this sort of opportunity—to share her disgust with Washington, to unload on the laziness wrought by a tribal two-party system, to wonder aloud whether Congress can be saved from itself. Spanberger wanted to itemize her grievances on paper as we spoke to ensure nothing was overlooked. But now she is speaking in stream-of-consciousness, detailing the institutional defects she has observed from the moment she arrived for freshman orientation.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/27/impeachment-trump-congress-house-228346

 

I thought this was a pretty depressing article that lays it all out. We all know Congress is fucked, but it's interesting to read how it feels from the perspective of a rep.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I'll read this, but starting with the "lack of bipartisanship" nonsense doesn't do the article favors. Bipartisanship is a ship that sank long ago, and is a relic of the comity of the post WWII era that is long dead as a result of the fracturing of the population, congress is just now finally catching up with the public at large (but not democratic leadership). Spanbergers lament about the lack of focus on policy, but instead of politics shows just how clueless she is.

[TwinIon]

Quote

 

There are two problems facing Kilmer and Graves. The first is a disconnect between the leadership of both parties and their rank-and-file members. In endless conversations with their colleagues, both in testimony before the committee and in more casual settings, it’s apparent that an essential frustration for members is their lack of input in the legislative process. Never has congressional power been so concentrated in the hands of leadership; even committee chairmen, once giants on the Hill, are now often rendered irrelevant under a system in which the party’s elected leadership writes the important bills, manipulates amendments, dictates the schedule of votes and works to predetermine every outcome on the floor.

..

The second problem is that Kilmer and Graves have no jurisdiction over these matters of procedural abuse. Despite hearing constant calls for a return to regular order, there is nothing they can do to change the rules by which a majority party runs the House. It simply is not within the purview of their committee.

 

These are things that I've been frustrated by just as an observer. That nothing can happen in the House or Senate without a single leader's say so seems so deeply undemocratic. I don't have any precise fixes, but something that I desperately would like to see is more voting. I know the current SOP says that you don't bring up a vote if you don't know the outcome, but I hate that about as much as anything in congress. I don't know how to structure a rule to prevent terrible abuse, but I wish groups could force votes more easily. I want these people to constantly be generating records to defend, and I want to know where they actually stand on things when it's not entirely theoretical.

 

 

This article didn't go too deep into it, but whenever I read any take on what it's like to be a congressperson, the worst sounding part is always the fundraising. I'd like to think that public funding could help, but I don't really know the best solution. What I do feel pretty certain of is that fundraising should not be the primary and overriding focus of every member of congress.

[TwinIon]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I'll read this, but starting with the "lack of bipartisanship" nonsense doesn't do the article favors. Bipartisanship is a ship that sank long ago, and is a relic of the comity of the post WWII era that is long dead as a result of the fracturing of the population, congress is just now finally catching up with the public at large (but not democratic leadership)

I don't think I really agree with that. If nothing else over the last few administrations we've seen how effective the minority party can be at preventing a majority from being even mildly effective. Ensuring that every congressional structure that used to promote any kind of common purpose or camaraderie amongst colleagues between parties is eliminated in favor of a dogmatic antagonism doesn't seem very helpful.

[Jason]

Bipartisan legislation is usually the worst legislation. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I will agree that the leadership, up to and including the president, has far too outsized a role in legislation. It's inherently undemocratic for one. I think term limits for Congress, even something like ten house terms or four Senate terms, would help done of these abuses. At least for leadership anyway. This, and a larger number of smaller, more compact legislative districts (read: more house members) and publicly funded elections would make many problems go away.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

25 minutes ago, Jason said:

Bipartisan legislation is usually the worst legislation. 

There's not been one good, major piece of bipartisan legislation in my lifetime. Closest is Medicare part D but that has so, so many flaws

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

There's not been one good, major piece of bipartisan legislation in my lifetime. Closest is Medicare part D but that has so, so many flaws

 

Patriot Act

 

Spoiler

 

[Anathema-]

Seems more like an opinion piece. That's typical for politico though.

[Massdriver]

23 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I will agree that the leadership, up to and including the president, has far too outsized a role in legislation. It's inherently undemocratic for one. I think term limits for Congress, even something like ten house terms or four Senate terms, would help done of these abuses. At least for leadership anyway. This, and a larger number of smaller, more compact legislative districts (read: more house members) and publicly funded elections would make many problems go away.

I don't see how more house members would help with the leadership issue.

 

Edit: Nevermind. I think you meant it would help with other issues, which I agree.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

I don't see how more house members would help with the leadership issue.

 

“This, and” 

 

The this part is leadership fixes, the and part of fixes for other aspects of congressional problems.