4 ms·

Because they see themselves as Democrats and Republicans more than they see themselves as Members of Congress. The identity/loyalty issue seems to be the main p

Because they see themselves as Democrats and Republicans more than they see themselves as Members of Congress. The identity/loyalty issue seems to be the main problem. If they see themselves first as Members of Congress, then they should try to seek more power for Congress, not for their parties.

pseudalopex 2y ago
219 Democrats and 1 Republican voted to limit presidential power. 0 Democrats and 208 Republicans voted against it.[1] [1] https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021440 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021440
- jimkleiber 2y ago
  I'll check it out. But the fact that it was mostly split along party lines says to me that they still have more loyalty to their party than branch
- roshin 2y ago
  Too bad the bill had things unrelated to limiting the presidential power like > requires a candidate for President or Vice President to provide copies of tax returns for the 10 most recent taxable years to the Federal Election Commission. > establishes a program to support states and localities transition to ranked choice voting systems. While things that I support, it frustrates me that congress can't propose bills that are hyper focused on one issue.
  - SmirkingRevenge 2y ago
    I don't think those line items would have made the difference either way. Until the turbo-filibuster we have today is curtailed, most legislation is DOA from the jump. Congress has slowly abdicated its power to the other two branches of government over the decades. As a consequence, it's become more and more performative over time. This reality ends up changing the type of people who even seek high office in the first place. Legislators get replaced by social media influencers. At this point, congress is primarily a judge appointment machine. And civic institutions that actually want to get things done, adjust accordingly. They spend less time drafting bills and lobbying congress, and more time fighting for change through the courts or by lobbying the executive directly.
  - boppo1 2y ago
    What are these riders called? Pork or something?
    - entropicdrifter 2y ago
      Pork Barrel is the term you're thinking of, but generally speaking that applies to spending that gets slapped onto unrelated bills, not necessarily to more general bloat like this stuff. Riders is probably the more accurate term
SmirkingRevenge 2y ago
The vast majority of congressional seats (both chambers) are safe seats and can't reasonably be flipped to the other party unless there is massive upheaval. The real elections for those seats happen in partisan primaries, where hyper-partisan ideologues are over represented. The electoral danger for most members of congress therefore comes from primary challengers catering to those ideological primary voters, and so incumbents have to defend their seats by being more partisan than the primary challengers. And so the partisanship keeps ratcheting up and up. The Republican party has been totally consumed by this and is now just a hollowed out cult of personality. The only way most Republicans can keep their seats is through total loyalty to Trump. Otherwise they get primaried. The extreme filibuster we have today also makes most legislation impossible - so the job of a member of congress has become more and more performative. At the same time, the population as a whole is sorting itself into like minded enclaves. Red areas are getting redder and blue areas are getting bluer. If we could somehow get rid of partisan primaries, the filibuster, and expand the house by several factors, we could improve the situation. But it's all so broken already, I don't know if we can get there.
- disgruntledphd2 2y ago
  > If we could somehow get rid of partisan primaries, the filibuster, and expand the house by several factors Honestly, just fixing the absurd gerrymandering (on both sides) would help with this. In basically every other developed country the governments have no powers to draw the electoral boundaries, which seems to work better.
  - SmirkingRevenge 2y ago
    Getting rid of gerrymandering is certainly the right thing to do, but surprisingly it won't be as effective at unwinding the mess as you'd think. "The Big Sort" is a big reason why (https://www.npr.org/2022/02/18/1081295373/the-big-sort-americans-move-to-areas-political-alignment https://www.npr.org/2022/02/18/1081295373/the-big-sort-ameri...). Doing something like expanding the house of representatives to several times it's current size would probably help much more. All these things are a bit academic though, since neither policy is very feasible.
trod1234 2y ago
> The identity/loyalty issue seems to be the main problem. It always has been. Even back in Rome there were the plebeians and the patricians. Demagogues rose to power based on party lines, corruption grew, and then Rome fell. What we are seeing today is what naturally happens when you fail to teach future leaders history, and instead they are taught, but this time it will be different.

pseudalopex 2y ago

219 Democrats and 1 Republican voted to limit presidential power. 0 Democrats and 208 Republicans voted against it.[1] [1] https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021440 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021440

jimkleiber 2y ago
I'll check it out. But the fact that it was mostly split along party lines says to me that they still have more loyalty to their party than branch
roshin 2y ago
Too bad the bill had things unrelated to limiting the presidential power like > requires a candidate for President or Vice President to provide copies of tax returns for the 10 most recent taxable years to the Federal Election Commission. > establishes a program to support states and localities transition to ranked choice voting systems. While things that I support, it frustrates me that congress can't propose bills that are hyper focused on one issue.
- SmirkingRevenge 2y ago
  I don't think those line items would have made the difference either way. Until the turbo-filibuster we have today is curtailed, most legislation is DOA from the jump. Congress has slowly abdicated its power to the other two branches of government over the decades. As a consequence, it's become more and more performative over time. This reality ends up changing the type of people who even seek high office in the first place. Legislators get replaced by social media influencers. At this point, congress is primarily a judge appointment machine. And civic institutions that actually want to get things done, adjust accordingly. They spend less time drafting bills and lobbying congress, and more time fighting for change through the courts or by lobbying the executive directly.
- boppo1 2y ago
  What are these riders called? Pork or something?
  - entropicdrifter 2y ago
    Pork Barrel is the term you're thinking of, but generally speaking that applies to spending that gets slapped onto unrelated bills, not necessarily to more general bloat like this stuff. Riders is probably the more accurate term

SmirkingRevenge 2y ago

The vast majority of congressional seats (both chambers) are safe seats and can't reasonably be flipped to the other party unless there is massive upheaval. The real elections for those seats happen in partisan primaries, where hyper-partisan ideologues are over represented. The electoral danger for most members of congress therefore comes from primary challengers catering to those ideological primary voters, and so incumbents have to defend their seats by being more partisan than the primary challengers. And so the partisanship keeps ratcheting up and up. The Republican party has been totally consumed by this and is now just a hollowed out cult of personality. The only way most Republicans can keep their seats is through total loyalty to Trump. Otherwise they get primaried. The extreme filibuster we have today also makes most legislation impossible - so the job of a member of congress has become more and more performative. At the same time, the population as a whole is sorting itself into like minded enclaves. Red areas are getting redder and blue areas are getting bluer. If we could somehow get rid of partisan primaries, the filibuster, and expand the house by several factors, we could improve the situation. But it's all so broken already, I don't know if we can get there.

disgruntledphd2 2y ago
> If we could somehow get rid of partisan primaries, the filibuster, and expand the house by several factors Honestly, just fixing the absurd gerrymandering (on both sides) would help with this. In basically every other developed country the governments have no powers to draw the electoral boundaries, which seems to work better.
- SmirkingRevenge 2y ago
  Getting rid of gerrymandering is certainly the right thing to do, but surprisingly it won't be as effective at unwinding the mess as you'd think. "The Big Sort" is a big reason why (https://www.npr.org/2022/02/18/1081295373/the-big-sort-americans-move-to-areas-political-alignment https://www.npr.org/2022/02/18/1081295373/the-big-sort-ameri...). Doing something like expanding the house of representatives to several times it's current size would probably help much more. All these things are a bit academic though, since neither policy is very feasible.

trod1234 2y ago

> The identity/loyalty issue seems to be the main problem. It always has been. Even back in Rome there were the plebeians and the patricians. Demagogues rose to power based on party lines, corruption grew, and then Rome fell. What we are seeing today is what naturally happens when you fail to teach future leaders history, and instead they are taught, but this time it will be different.