Measuring a Congress: Numbers, Spin and the Shift to Social Media Politics

One day after Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) released the House early for its pre-election break, Democrats attacked him for running a "do nothing Congress" that had achieved little.

Johnson pushed back, describing the present House as the second most productive in the chamber's history and the most productive in 80 years. Those assertions can be contested.

How legislative productivity is measured matters greatly. Johnson cites more than 900 pieces of legislation passed by the House, 700 of which are still held up in the Senate. Not every bill can become law. Yet by Aug. 31, just 111 of the 732 House-passed bills and joint resolutions eligible to become law had actually done so. A Washington Post analysis found that the Democratic 115th Congress (2017 through 2018) enacted 580 laws, the highest total, while the Republican 118th Congress (2023 through 2024) produced 274, the lowest.

Amid this back-and-forth over figures, it is worth asking what genuinely decides whether a Congress succeeds or fails. Just as important, how do these yardsticks shape the condition of the country, or even sway the results of individual congressional races and which party controls the two chambers next year?

Certain non-partisan organizations contend that beyond the tally of laws passed, a Congress should also be assessed on the budget consequences of major legislation, the social change it generates, and the degree to which it lets members push their priorities forward.

The straightforward response to these weighty questions is that it depends on who is looking. How Congress is seen is relative and reflects political and personal outlooks. The harder response is that no equation, however many factors it includes, can quantify a Congress's success or failure. In the end, neither opinion polls before an election nor the election results themselves will resolve the matter. That verdict belongs to history alone.

In last Sunday's New York Times magazine, Robert Draper, a longtime observer of Congress, published "How Congress Fell Apart," with the subtitle "An Inside Account from Lawmakers of Both Parties About How America's Legislative Branch Descended Into Total Dysfunction."

Building on broadly negative public views that Congress is failing at its intended work, and on interviews with 30 current and former members of both parties plus key staff, Draper determines that a leading cause of the decline is the first branch's shift away from a culture of lawmaking toward one of social media combat. Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) described it this way: "What you see now are too many people who come in viewing Congress as their green screen," adding that "they're going to make a name for themselves and don't give a damn about anything else."

Former Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) said Congress now has two business models: "One business model is legislating. … The other business model is being a social media influencer." Rep. Julia Brownley (D-Calif.) reinforced the point: "People now want scrappy fighters. … The scrappy fighter as opposed to the legislator — scrappy wins."

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who is leaving after 22 years, agreed. "You're elected not to get along with the other side and get good things done for the country," he said. "You're elected to fight and kill the other side."

Strikingly, Draper's article offers a hopeful note near its end, describing how a bipartisan housing measure cleared both chambers following extensive negotiation and compromise. The bill initially enjoyed President Trump's backing, though he cooled on it as the end approached in order to prioritize his "SAVE America Act" election changes.

Although Trump played down the housing bills as "of minor importance," Johnson ultimately convinced him not to veto it. Johnson argued to Trump that the bill handed Republicans a solid economic message for campaigning. Thus, following the Constitution's required ten-day period at the White House, "The 21st Century Road to Housing Act" became law without Trump's signature.

Cooperation of that kind across party lines is seldom seen now, but it demonstrates that members are still able, quietly, to work together to deliver for the country. The public may pay it little mind and give little credit, yet it remains one meaningful marker of success for a Congress with few other achievements to highlight.

Don Wolfensberger spent 28 years as a congressional staffer, rising to chief of staff of the House Rules Committee. He wrote "Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial" and "Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays."

Comments

Join the conversation: Sign in

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.