For Members of Congress, No Penalty for Failure

Americans have pretty much had it with politics.

According to a recent Pew Research poll, two-thirds of Americans express little or no confidence in the American political system. Less than half think voting is a very effective way to change the country for the better, perhaps because two-thirds are dissatisfied with the candidates they have to choose from. Only a quarter express any satisfaction with Congress which nearly everyone believes is heavily influenced by lobbyists, special interests and campaign donors.  Nearly nine in ten think politicians are more focused on fighting the other party than solving problems.

Despite this dissatisfaction, only 39 of 390 House incumbents seeking re-election have seriously competitive races this year.  In the Senate, it’s 5 of 15.  What’s even more curious is that few of the challengers in those races have based their campaigns on tying the incumbent to a Congress the voters view as hopelessly partisan and ineffective.

And there, in a nutshell, is the political reality at the core of Congress’s dysfunction:  there is no political penalty for failure.  No penalty for doing nothing about lax border security and immigration policy that has allowed millions to enter the country without authorization. No penalty for doing nothing about climate change after a year of devastating hurricanes floods and wildfires.  No penalty for doing nothing about rail safety after one of the deadliest and most dangerous derailments in history.  No penalty for doing nothing to protect consumer privacy and children’s safety on the Internet. No penalty for failing to regulate Big Tech and protect consumer privacy and children’s mental health on the Internet. No penalty for doing nothing about a runaway federal budget deficit or to restore the solvency of a Social Security system that will find itself short of funds within a decade.  And while we’re at it, no penalty for doing nothing to limit the obscene level of campaign spending, which by one estimate will reach $16 billion in this year’s presidential and congressional races.

Mention these failures to a Member of Congress and they simply shrug their shoulders, nod in the direction of the leadership offices and point an accusing finger at the other party.  Failure is now so hard wired into routines and norms at the Capitol that it has become the expected outcome, the default option, the preferred alternative to compromising with members of the other party.  

At the Fixing Congress Initiative at Penn Washington, our aim is to prod the more serious legislators in Congress to demand something better of themselves, their colleagues and their institution. But I suspect real progress won’t come until some senator or congressman in a “safe” seat is beaten by an upstart clever enough to tap into the deep well of voter discontent.

As it happens, just such a scenario may be unfolding this year in in deep-red Nebraska, where Dan Osborn, a onetime mechanic who led a strike at a Kellogg cereal factory in Omaha is within striking distance of upsetting two-term Republican Sen. Deb Fischer.  Osborn, a pickup-driving economic populist with a libertarian streak, is running as an independent with a pox-on-both-houses attitude toward both the major parties. His promise is to build common sense consensus across party lines. Fischer, taking her messaging cues and $3 million from the Republican campaign committee, has tried to paint Osborn as a radical lefty and closet Democrat, so far without much success.  The latest polls show her with a slim two-point advantage, with many voters still undecided.

Win or lose, Osborn’s come-from-nowhere challenge holds out the possibility of changing the political calculus around failure. Maybe, just maybe, Members will begin to question the conventional wisdom that doing nothing is less risky than doing something. And maybe, just maybe, they will begin to challenge party leaders who would rather kick the can down the road than bring up issues that might expose cracks in party unity or require members to take “tough” votes.

If Congress is ever to “fix” itself, that is how it begins, with a message from angry voters that failure is no longer an option.

Steven Pearlstein is a Senior Fellow at Penn Washington. He is also the Robinson Professor of Public Affairs at George Mason University and a former Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post. The views expressed here are his own.