When I explain how the current mess with Congress has developed over the last century, I often get as a reply, \u201cWhat we really need is campaign finance reform,\u201d or, \u201cWhat we really need is redistricting reform,\u201d or, \u201cWhat we really need are term limits,\u201d or, \u201cWhat we really need are more principled candidates, \u201cor, \u201cWhat we really need is (fill in the blank).\u201d<\/p>\n
I have no doubts that we could make things better than they are through campaign finance reform, or with any of the other proposed fixes. (Indeed, it would be hard to make things much worse.) But are these the better choice of reform? They would take a lot of work for one thing. These are all complicated issues with lots of moving pieces, and there are a lot of divergent ideas on how the rules should be changed. \u00a0Those differing opinions would need to reconciled, compromises reached, laws changed. Once enacted, would the laws work the way we want them to work? There is always the risk of unintended consequences, especially with complex changes to large systems. And people are very clever at finding exceptions and loopholes. More rules would be required to patch the loopholes that themselves have loopholes that then need patching.\u00a0 To manage all of this, people and institutions would be needed to practice oversight of compliance. The perfect Department of Redundancy Department.<\/p>\n
The Constitution spells out a much easier method – Have a census every ten years and add or subtract Representatives to match changes in population.<\/p>\n
Why wouldn\u2019t people want such a simple and effective means of managing government?<\/p>\n
One reason is that the problems have been so slow in developing that we don\u2019t associate the current situation with changes made a hundred years ago.\u00a0 We see and respond only to the results that we are experiencing now, not to the wheels that were put in motion long ago.<\/p>\n
And when it comes to problem solving, all of us are inclined to fix the immediate problem in front of us and not address the underlying causes. When we have a cold, we are all accustomed to seeking relief from symptoms, the things that bother us – the fevers, the chills, the aches and pains. We treat the symptoms and we feel better, but we are not cured until our bodies fight off the root causes of the symptoms – the viruses that have taken hold. It is no different with the way we approach solving the problems with Congress. Too much money at work in elections? Take a tablet of Campaign Finance Reform. Gerrymandered districts? Swallow some syrup of Redistricting Reform. Elected Representatives too long in office? Pop a capsule of Term Limits. These essentially are over-the-counter treatments to ease the symptoms caused by systemic dysfunction. They don\u2019t touch the underlying cause.<\/p>\n
There is also an appeal to taking an aspirin or two. It gives a sense of activity, that we are doing something and are in control of the situation. \u00a0The advice to \u201crest, drink lots of water, get plenty of sleep, and in a couple of days you\u2019ll feel better,\u201d doesn’t \u00a0fit well with our can-do, make things happen culture. But going back to the pre-1910 administration of the House is just like that simple advice \u2013 do the right things and the system will regain its balance.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
When I explain how the current mess with Congress has developed over the last century, I often get as a reply, \u201cWhat we really need is campaign finance reform,\u201d or, \u201cWhat we really need is redistricting reform,\u201d or, \u201cWhat we really need are term limits,\u201d or, \u201cWhat we really need are more principled candidates, \u201cor, … Continue reading Why not Campaign Finance Reform? Or Term Limits? Or\u2026<\/span>