Members of Congress: We’re the Worst Ever

What does it mean when even the most skilled lawmakers in Congress are giving up?

National Journal
Lucia Graves
March 11, 2014, 8:23 a.m.

Grid­lock and ac­ri­mo­ni­ous par­tis­an­ship are noth­ing new to vet­er­an law­makers. But in an in­ter­view pub­lished Monday in The Hill, they said something that is: The 113th Con­gress just might be the most ter­rible ever.

“It’s cer­tainly the worst Con­gress since I’ve been in Con­gress,” said Rep. Henry Wax­man, a Cali­for­nia Demo­crat who’s served on Cap­it­ol Hill for 40 years. “We’ve got­ten very little done.”

And Wax­man, who was first elec­ted in 1972, has the con­gres­sion­al bona fides to make that dia­gnos­is.

It’s not just that he’s been there a long time; he knows how to work the sys­tem. “I have prob­ably passed more le­gis­la­tion in­to law than any sit­ting mem­ber of the House,” Wax­man told Na­tion­al Journ­al back in April, “with the pos­sible ex­cep­tion of John Din­gell.” (At least one ana­lyst con­firmed his self-as­sess­ment.)

Din­gell, the longest-serving mem­ber in his­tory, also called the 113th Con­gress more un­pro­duct­ive than any he’d seen. “We only passed 55, 57 bills,” the Michigan Demo­crat told The Hill. “That in­dic­ates a very low level of pro­ductiv­ity.”

Wax­man and Din­gell are part of what Na­tion­al Journ­al has re­ferred to as “The Ex­odus of Prob­lem Solv­ers on Cap­it­ol Hill.” As Norm Orn­stein wrote in Feb­ru­ary, the re­tir­ees share a com­mon char­ac­ter­ist­ic: “They rep­res­ent a heav­ily dis­pro­por­tion­ate share of those who would fit com­fort­ably in a Prob­lem-Solv­ing Caucus if one ex­is­ted.” If the most skilled politi­cians have giv­en up, what can we ex­pect of the rest of them? The up­shot is that the re­mainder of the year will likely be even more un­pro­duct­ive than what we have seen so far, with policy areas like im­mig­ra­tion and tax re­form dwarfed by con­cerns about midterm elec­tions.

Of course, most law­makers re­tire for per­son­al reas­ons. But Din­gell has ex­pli­citly cited dis­sat­is­fac­tion with the body’s ef­fic­acy as among his in­cent­ives to leave, telling The New York Times that Con­gress had be­come “ob­nox­ious.”

That sen­ti­ment is re­mark­ably in tune with Amer­ic­ans’ per­cep­tions of Con­gress. In Decem­ber of last year, Gal­lup polling found voters’ ap­prov­al of Con­gress av­er­aged 14 per­cent in 2013, the low­est since their polling began. Earli­er this year, the body’s ap­prov­al rat­ing stood at just 13 per­cent.

There’s been plenty of spec­u­la­tion about why those num­bers are so low. A new work­ing pa­per pub­lished by two polit­ic­al-sci­ence gradu­ates sug­ges­ted it’s be­cause politi­cians tend to vastly over­es­tim­ate how con­ser­vat­ive their elect­or­ate is. And an art­icle in For­bes some­what pre­dict­ably blamed the me­dia. But it’s time we con­sidered a dif­fer­ent al­tern­at­ive.

Maybe, just maybe, Amer­ic­ans think Con­gress is the worst ever be­cause it is, in fact, the worst ever.

What We're Following See More »
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
1 days ago

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.