Newspaper article Roll Call

Ornstein: Congress Has Changed, Not for the Better, and Now It Needs Changing

Newspaper article Roll Call

Ornstein: Congress Has Changed, Not for the Better, and Now It Needs Changing

Article excerpt

Today"s column will be my last in Roll Call. After more than 20 years of writing Congress Inside Out (my first piece was in 1989), I will be moving on to another venue, starting next month. (Trust me, I"m not going away!) For this column occasion, I thought back to how Congress has changed over the years since I first wrote for this paper.

Both parties have changed; Democrats have grown less heterogeneous as the contingent of Blue Dogs has declined. Yet the most significant changes have come from, and been driven by, Republicans.

Some of the more important changes really took off around 1993. As Tom Mann and I have written in our books "The Broken Branch' and "It"s Even Worse Than It Looks,' Newt Gingrich was a catalyst. From Bill Clinton"s first day in the White House, House Republicans and their Senate counterparts behaved like a parliamentary minority party, opposing in unison his signature priority in his first year, an economic plan. There were comfortable majorities of Democrats in both chambers, but Clinton could not command anywhere close to the unity he needed to overcome GOP intransigence - for seven-plus long months. (The plan ultimately passed both the House and Senate with no Republican votes.)

The pattern repeated itself with health care in 1994, and it led to Gingrich"s triumph in the 1994 elections; to the first Republican majority in the House in 40 years; to the era since, where close divisions make the majority in each chamber vulnerable to change in virtually every election; and finally to the dominance of the permanent campaign, where gaining traction for campaign purposes trumps working together to solve problems.

The permanent campaign also means that demonization of adversaries for political purposes has poisoned comity and added to the tribal atmosphere in the House.

The House in 1993-94 had a significant contingent of moderate and even liberal Republicans, all of whom joined in the party strategy to oppose en bloc - one reason being that Democratic insensitivity and arrogance, bred by decades of hegemony, radicalized many of them.

But on many other lower-profile issues, Republicans were able and willing to work with Democrats to find bipartisan solutions to problems. That is lost in the mists of history.

There are no more moderate or liberal Republicans - the Sherwood Boehlerts, John Porters, Amo Houghtons and Michael N. Castles are long gone. What now passes for a moderate would have been considered a bedrock conservative in the early 1990s.

The House GOP has veered sharply, even drastically, to the right from what already was a pretty rightist center of gravity.

But more important has been the attitudinal change. Respect for the institution of Congress - much less for the framers" vision of policymaking through deliberation, debate and an effort to find common ground, or at least grounds for compromise - has been replaced by obduracy, contempt for compromise and a level of demonization of the other side, starting with the president. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.