Thursday, October 18, 2007

The 11% Narrative

It has been widely reported that Congress is only viewed favorably by 11% of Americans today. That is a shameful, horrible figure. What is worse is the fact that it is at least partially the result of the narrative about Congress that has been constructed in the past five years. It is impossible for Congress to get a fair shake, no matter what they do, because the narrative constructed about Congressional "inaction" does not account for the fact that "inaction" is the essence of our system of government. Until a majority of Americans are reminded that there are limits on Congressional action, just as there are (or should be) limits on Presidential action, Congressional approval will always lag Presidential approval, and horribly so.

The news media is inherently biased towards action and conflict. Action and conflict sell papers and retain eyeballs, and typically precedes accuracy in reporting. This is the reason that political reporting is so focused on horse races. Policies and facts are merely important, not interesting. Congress, as an institution is fundamentally a place where action and conflict are diluted and restrained. It runs on deliberation and incrementalism.

Thus, in the interest of selling papers and ads on television, media coverage of our government will always have an inherent bias towards the Executive branch, due to the fact that that branch has far more freedom of action and capability for conflict than the legislative branch.

The "slow, obstructionist Congress" narrative operates regardless of the reality of circumstances. For example, did you know that our Democratic Congress is on pace to call over 1000 roll call votes this year? The House of Representatives has already broken the 1978 record for votes (942).
Democrats say they're living up to promises made during the 2006 campaign, when they said they would worker harder, remain in session more days and hold more votes on American priorities.

“Not only did we finish the work the previous Congress left undone, we advanced our new direction agenda, with nearly 70 percent of our key measures receiving significant bipartisan support," said Kristie Greco, spokesman for House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.). - Politico.com
By the standards set during the Republican Congress of the Bush Administration, the present Congress has been remarkably active in doing the people's business. But this fact lies buried in a corner blog of a political website.

Furthermore, Congress has been doing more because that is what Americans say they want.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(Pew Survey, "Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007")


The voters support more programs and help for people who cannot help themselves. And that is what the Democratic Congress has been doing.
Recent successes include passage of the Student Loan Bill, implementing all the 9/11 Commission Recommendations, returning the proper role of the Senate to the appointment of U.S. Attorneys, raising the minimum wage, funding quality treatment of our wounded soldiers and funding water projects that have gone unfunded throughout the Bush administration. - Leesburg Tomorrow, September 13, 2007
Instead of reports about the bills which have passed, become law, and are on their way to making the lives of Americans a little bit easier, the narrative is focused on those two or three areas which retain the drama of action and conflict: Iraq and now SCHIP.

It is undeniable that Congress should be acting to mitigate the evils to which our excursion into Iraq trend. On this, the most critical issue before our country, Congress has been too timid. (We can only be grateful that Senator Jim Webb is speaking for the Virginians serving abroad with force and authority.)

But to say Congress should be acting is not the same as saying the Democratic Leadership has done nothing. On the contrary, the Democratic Leadership in Congress has led on the issues critical to Iraq. In fact, a majority in Congress has voted, many times, to reduce our role in Iraq, scale back the mission, or at a minimum, allow our soldiers as much time at home as they spend abroad. In each case, the Republicans blocked progress. In fact, the Republicans have blocked progress more frequently than any Congressional minority in history. (Including one Senator with more than 100 holds.) The Democratic Leadership has been able to lead on important issues and pass important bills, in spite of the monolithic obstruction of the Republican minority.

If there is a narrative which is in concert with the facts it is that of overcoming remarkable opposition and adversity to do the business of the American people.

But that narrative does not sell advertising.

And so, even as the news is dominated for the next day by the failure to override President Bush's SCHIP veto, please take notice of how many times the override is explained in terms of the missing Republican votes in the House of Representatives. Please listen closely to hear if the story explains that an overwhelming majority in Congress voted in favor of this bill, multiple times, but a handful of obstructionist Republicans stood in the way of childrens' health insurance. And as you do that, please listen for any indication that the media makes note of the fact that this bill could have easily become law, insuring the children, if only President Bush had been willing to compromise.

Rather, the coverage will read like this:
House Democrats were unable Thursday to override President Bush's veto of their pre-election year effort to expand a popular government health insurance program to cover 10 million children.

The bill had bipartisan support but the 273-156 roll call was 13 votes short of the two-thirds that majority supporters needed to enact the bill into law over Bush's objections. The bill had passed the Senate with a veto-proof margin. - The Associated Press, via NPR
Nevermind that there was a strong bipartisan majority and the Democrats were able to muster unity in their caucus to override the veto. Nevermind that it was actually the failure of the Republicans to muster enough votes for a veto. This is a failure of "House Democrats." Nevermind that Congress has voted dozens of times, through committees and hearings and procedural motions, to move this program forward, to fund it, and to make it the law of the land. This is a failure of "House Democrats." Because the 11% narrative must be maintained.

But at the end of the day, the override failed because the system worked the way it is supposed to work. The rights of the minority were retained, the passions of the moment were diluted and Congress forced into more deliberation. And that is the narrative which is missing from our national media discourse.

Glenn Smith gets the last word.
Of course, it would be as damaging to idealize the legislative branch as it is to hero-worship a president. Congress is not a team, it is a meeting place for competing teams, and so its actions are, by design, contentious and argumentative. In this context, it is supposed to produce "good enough" laws and inhibit tyrannies of either majorities or minorities. It should be responsive enough that all of us can consent to its decisions even as we might work passionately to overturn them. - The Rockridge Institute

3 comments:

brentwood02134 said...

When did Congress become a team sport? Dems vs. Reps? My naive viewpoint on the US government was Congress represented the voters, not ideological agendas of "Democrat" or "Republican" ideas. Frankly, the political news and agendas are driven by the vocal minority in both parties, far left wing Dems (Pelosi, Clinton, etc) and right wing Republicans (read Bush, Cheney, etc). In my opinion, the average US citizen falls somewhere in the middle of each party.

You are correct to point out that the media has no interest in legislation that serves the middle (or serves the people) but sells ads.

Unfortunately, senators, congressmen and other politicians are generally all self-serving, wanna-be celebrities that have no interest other than their own. I live in perhaps the most liberal (yet secretly conservative) states in the US and it is NEVER about the voters. I base this on first hand experience and knowledge.

Thank you for your wonderful and thoughful blog and thanks for the chance to vent.

Paradox13VA said...

The disaffection you express is exactly part of my point. In my dealings with politicians (and granted, it's been Democratic ones in Virginia) they have almost universally been conscientious and geniunely interested in the needs of the voters, but you'd never know that from the way they're covered and talked about.

But it is a lot different when talking to a minority party trying to get into power than a majority party simply retaining it.

brentwood02134 said...

I'm happy to hear your encounters with local politicians and Virginia representatives has been pleasant. I would caution you and say that a politician's sole goal in life is to make the voters believe they are genuinely interested in helping or making a difference. Then again, my experiences have been a little different.

I'm a bit confused by your Minority vs. Majority point? Are you talking about the local political climate in Loudon and northern Virginia, or on a national level.

The Democratic party is the majority power in Congress, yet they act like the minority. The Republican lead Congress ran roughshod over us for the last several terms with just as slim a majority as held today by the Dems. If they are the majority, perhaps it is a failure in their core leadership to take hold and act like it. What happened to Pelosi's First 100 days, what a load of bull.

The inner division between far left agenda and more moderate or progressive democrats (like myself)weakens them. Here's an example. Niki Tsongas, a liberal Democratic candidate in the 5th District of Massachusetts with name recognition was just given the run of a lifetime by a first time Republican challenger who got 45% of the vote in a District that is both extremely liberal and blue-collar. He got that high level of votes despite his staunch support of Iraq and some of Bush's policies. That should be a wakeup call to the National Dems.

His overall platform was Congress is broken. I guess I'm not the only one that agrees with him. Right now its a Democratic led Congress and if people think its broken, guess who's in charge. The Dems need to move towards the middle, pass some substantive legislation and stop beating the Iraq and Bush horses, they're already dust.