It's the institutions, stupid!
https://www.politico.com/story/2010/01/its-the-institutions-stupid-031356
By JULIAN E. ZELIZER
At its halfway point, the 111th Congress is faring poorly in the court of public opinion. By November 2009, only 26 percent of Americans approved of how Congress was doing its job, according to Gallup; other polls point to similar results.
Still, there are a number of reasons why Democratic leaders should be pleased with its performance. Congress passed a $787 billion economic stimulus bill that many experts say helped stabilize the financial markets and is leading to a steady, if slow, economic recovery. Congress passed and the president signed several important pieces of legislation, including an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and a bill protecting women from workplace discrimination. The House and Senate have both passed versions of health care reform and are close to sending President Barack Obama a final bill. The House has also passed a number of bills that are awaiting action in the Senate, including ones addressing climate change and financial regulation.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has skillfully navigated divisions between moderates and liberals in her caucus and has proved a pragmatic leader willing to cut deals, compromise and use party assets and appropriations to reach the magic number of 218 votes. She does this while preserving her broader agenda, constantly seeking to find ways to make contemporary liberalism politically viable. Time magazine named her a runner-up for person of the year.
Then why are so many Democrats feeling blue? The problem is that after the 2008 election, many of Obama’s supporters were hoping for much more. They thought that, by now, Congress would have passed a larger number of the major items on the president’s agenda and that the legislation that passed would not be so watered down. Too many bills (climate change) seem to be stuck in the Senate, while others (immigration reform) are off the agenda altogether.
Much of the problem has been with the Senate. Pelosi must feel like a great National Football League quarterback on a mediocre team who throws perfect passes only to watch as the receivers drop the ball. Some observers have blamed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for lacking the political chops necessary to move legislation, but the problem is much bigger. The senator is dealing with a legislative process that has become virtually dysfunctional. Party polarization in the Senate has reached extreme levels, and the leadership must pass legislation without support from the other side of the aisle.
Then there’s the Democrats’ filibuster problem. Sixty is the new normal in Senate politics. This means a small group of centrists in the Democratic Party have been able to play an extraordinarily powerful role. They have been able to reshape legislation in ways that frustrate the rest of their party. With the economic stimulus, the size of the package was sharply reduced to make centrists happy, while the health care debate saw several provisions jettisoned, including the public option and a Medicare expansion. Abortion restrictions were inserted into the bill over the opposition of many Democrats. Reid had to resort to a number of unpopular deals to get health care through the Senate, including exempting Nebraska from paying for the proposed expansion of Medicaid to secure Sen. Ben Nelson’s vote.
The other institutional challenge has to do with the power of K Street. The White House has not made campaign finance reform or substantive lobbying changes a top priority. As a result, the financial bailout saved Wall Street without imposing harsh penalties on those who caused the meltdown, while the pending financial regulations are much less sweeping than many Democrats had expected. The Senate-passed health care reform legislation lacks many of the most sought-after cost-control measures, which health care lobbyists opposed, and offers lucrative sweeteners to powerful industries such as the pharmaceutical companies.
The chances for legislative productivity will only diminish this coming year. As members of Congress start to focus on midterm elections, their interest in backing politically risky legislation will only diminish. Both parties will want to preserve the status quo and position themselves for reelection. Moreover, as national security concerns — from counterterrorism to Afghanistan — loom larger, it will be harder to move Congress on domestic issues.
If the White House wants a legislative process that will be more conducive to success in 2011 and 2012, it will need to return to some of the themes that Obama promoted on the campaign trail — the themes of change and reform, which have been ignored since this presidency started. Filibuster reform and campaign reform will have to be at the top of the agenda.
Reform is not impossible. During the Progressive Era, congressional reformers empowered committees, weakened the speaker of the House and passed an amendment that resulted in the direct election of senators. During the 1970s, congressional reformers weakened committee chairs, opened the legislative process to public scrutiny, created new ethics rules and campaign finance regulations and lowered the number of members needed to end a filibuster.
Julian E. Zelizer is professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.
