Joe Nocera's New York Times column today features Rep. Jim Cooper, a moderate Tennessee Democrat, lamenting the state of Congress. Unfortunately, Cooper almost completely misunderstands cause and effect in his diagnosis of legislative polarization, which focuses, as Nocera writes, on "the internal dynamics of Congress itself":
I thought it would be useful to ask Cooper how Congress became so dysfunctional. His answer surprised me. He said almost nothing about the Tea Party. Instead, he focused on the internal dynamics of Congress itself.
To Cooper, the true villain is not the Tea Party; it's Newt Gingrich. In the 1980s, when Tip O'Neill was speaker of the House, "Congress was functional," Cooper told me. "Committees worked. Tip saw his role as speaker of the whole House, not just the Democrats."
Gingrich was a new kind of speaker: deeply partisan and startlingly power-hungry. "His first move was to get rid of the Democratic Study Group, which analyzed bills, and which was so trusted that Republicans as well as Democrats relied on it," Cooper recalled. "This was his way of preventing us from knowing what we were voting on. Today," he added, "the ignorance around here is staggering. Nobody has any idea what they're voting on."
In the O'Neill era, when an important issue was being debated, there were often several legislative alternatives. But, under Gingrich, "that was eliminated in favor of one partisan bill," said Cooper. That continued after the Democrats retook the House in 2006...
In reality, however, the changes Cooper laments were largely the result of external factors. As I've pointed out before, Congress was relatively de-polarized in the mid-20th century because Southern Democrats operated as a virtual third party (House graphs below; Senate data are similar):
After the civil rights movement, however, the Democrats were no longer internally divided by race. As a result, the political system began to return to the historical norm of polarization. Over time, this shift was reenforced by the polarization among ideologically motivated activists who came to dominate party primaries. As more extreme representatives were elected to the House and the parties became more polarized, they began to elect more partisan leaders, who in turn implemented more partisan rules.
Newt Gingrich is an important part of this story, but he didn't make Congress partisan - he capitalized on growing polarization among activists and elites and an ideologically motivated caucus that wanted to enact a conservative policy agenda. If Gingrich hadn't succeeded in changing the norms of the House, another ambitious member of Congress most likely would have.
(According to Nocera, Cooper also made the claim that "redistricting has fostered extremism on both the left and the right." If that were the case, however, the Senate would not have polarized like the House (it has). The best empirical study finds little evidence that gerrymandering plays a major role in polarization.)
Brendan's conclusions look reasonable. I have a few comments about the Times article:
1. I think it's a stretch to blame something Gingrich did 20 years ago for how Congress works today. The people responsible for preventing debate on the terms of the health care and Dodd-Frank bills were the leadership when they were passed: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama.
2. If one wants to blame someone for initiating the kind of rudeness experienced by Elisabeth Warren, the turning point was the Dems' shameful treatment of Robert Bork. That's why the word Bork is in is the dictionary.
3. Bias is shown by the Times' gratuitous implication that the Tea Party ought to be blamed for polarization, even though Cooper hadn't mentioned them.
4. The article assumes that a polarized Congress means worse policy. It's natural that a long-time Congressman would believe this. However, I'm not sure I agree. I know of no evidence proving that polarized legislatures make worse laws. Note that the bitter battles between Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton led to balanced budgets!
Posted by: David in Cal | September 06, 2011 at 06:38 PM
In fairness, the Times piece in question was an op-ed column, not a Times article--though assuredly their news articles are often also misguided and counterfactual.
The reminder of why the word "bork" is in the dictionary is useful (not to be confused with the word boink, which is also in the dictionary).
Posted by: Rob | September 06, 2011 at 06:58 PM
Further to my previous comment about the Times's news articles, last week Charlie Savage wrote about Operation Fast and Furious, a subject Brendan's been paying attention to as part of his interest in what becomes a political scandal. In the course of fewer than 900 words, Savage managed to describe the operation as both "ill-fated" and "star-crossed." Apparently the fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the Administration but in our stars. Let it be noted that Charlie Savage is a winner of the NCTE George Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language. Orwell would have appreciated the irony.
Posted by: Rob | September 06, 2011 at 08:02 PM
Some of you are only looking at face value...Bork was merely political payback for Democratic "indescretions" committed against the Republicans. Which further supports Cooper's assertions. It is from both sides of the aisle...
Posted by: William Moody | September 12, 2011 at 02:40 PM