STUCK

On the origins of Congressional gridlock.

Generations pass, old people depart, young people arrive. So why, given this logical order of time, do party leaders in Congress seem to be unable or unwilling to let their young colleagues have a share of the power? Public policy researcher Kornberg examines three Congressional classes—1974, 1994, and 2018—when a great number of incoming representatives were “younger, less experienced, and came from diverse backgrounds,” all campaigning on the promise of change. When the 1974 class arrived, it was in response to Watergate, a Democratic wave focused on campaign reform. Democratic leadership responded by putting these first-term legislators on important committees, sometimes even at the head, with the result, Kornberg writes, that “votes were allowed on legislation that otherwise might have been blocked by previous, all-powerful chairs.” When Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America class arrived in 1994, GOP leadership took much tighter control of the reins, with most reforms “led by Gingrich rather than the freshmen” and with Gingrich relying on GOP freshmen to support him uncritically rather than share out power. This marks a progression to the present, in which legislators increasingly cling to the party line; as Kornberg notes, when Medicare passed in 1965, it was with the support of 237 Democrats and 70 Republicans, “while Obamacare passed in 2010 with no Republican votes.” First-termers now have little sway and hold few influential committee assignments, thanks to ossified, big-donor-beholden party hierarchies—a lack of power that many try to get around by building their presence on social media “as a way to change public opinion on issues and raise money online.” Given the rise in political violence, though, many prefer to duck and cover just at a time, Kornberg urges, when “Trump’s threats to weaken Congress could galvanize the new class.”

A useful explanation for political stalemate—and a cry for reform to let younger voices have their say.