Congress Is Changing — for the Worse

By Peter J. Wallison

Monday, January 31, 2022

 

Republicans and conservatives have been celebrating the likely defeat of the Build Back Better (BBB) bill in the Senate, but that outcome — even if it occurs — may obscure the long-term significance of this episode.

 

Before 2021, few people who follow U.S. politics could have imagined that legislation as radical and transformative as the BBB bill might have passed the House and Senate when both were nearly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Legislation like that has always come to a vote when one party had a massive majority in both houses of Congress, for the simple reason that both parties reflect the vast diversity of the country, and highly controversial or transformative legislation can be passed only when one party has won a landslide victory that it interprets as a mandate for substantial change. Even in that case, there are always representatives and senators who vote their districts and states rather than their party’s ideology.

 

The classic case is the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, another transformative bill. That year, President Lyndon B. Johnson was pressing for FDR-like change in the federal government’s role in the economy, and the Democrats had a massive majority in Congress. Nevertheless, 40 Democrats in the House and 12 in the Senate voted against the bill, which passed the House 226 to 185 and the Senate 61 to 34, with 10 Republicans voting aye. This dispersion of votes is typical of legislation in the U.S. Congress; it’s a reflection of the fact that representatives and senators come from very different communities, which they attempt in most cases to represent.

 

The usual picture is presented by the 2021 voting on the so-called infrastructure bill, which finally passed Congress after the Progressive caucus had released its hold in November. This bill was typical bipartisan legislation; both parties got what they wanted, and the country’s roads, bridges, and transportation system would be the better for it, with 19 Republican senators and 13 Republican House members voting for this legislation, which originated in the Senate.

 

This was not what happened on the controversial BBB legislation in 2021. Although the bill — involving government expenditures and taxes of almost $5 trillion — was at least as transformative as the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, every Democrat in the House voted for it and every Republican voted against it. The bill has not yet come to a vote in the Senate — and it may not in the end — but if and when it does, every Republican will vote against it, and every Democrat, with the possible exception of Manchin (West Virginia) and Sinema (Arizona), will vote for it.

 

The important point here is not that two Democrats opposed this bill, but that if not for their opposition, this radical legislation would have passed through Congress and changed forever the relationship between the government and the people of this country. Transformative legislation like this is very rare in Congress, and the fact that it came so close to enactment in a closely divided House and Senate is a puzzle. Either there was something highly unusual about the circumstances in Congress at the time, or Congress has suddenly become ideologically divided in a way the voters themselves are not.

 

When the House and Senate are closely divided, what usually happens is that highly controversial or transformative legislation is sidetracked or buried because party leaders have learned that some of their members see it as a difficult vote. That’s why only when one party has a massive voting advantage are bills like BBB brought to the floor. The leaders know that some of their members can’t vote for the bill, but they can afford to lose those votes if they have a large enough majority. This did not happen with the BBB. Although the House and Senate were closely divided and many members probably had misgivings about the vote their leaders demanded, the Democrats who represented red states or districts were told to walk the plank, and they complied.

 

Moreover, this is not the only case in this Congress where a leader demanded a vote that his members would have preferred to avoid. In early January, Senator Chuck Schumer (New York) required the Democrats in the Senate to vote on whether they would abandon the filibuster on two legislative matters — bills that would have changed voting rules that had previously been considered the province of the states. Although the effort failed, 51–48, it was highly significant for the future operations of the Senate. Forty-eight Democrats are now on record as opposing the filibuster on legislation — something that will change how Congress operates in the future. Not only will this vote jeopardize the reelection of these senators; it also tells the voters that if they ever again give the Democrats a majority in the Senate, there will be no protection for the rights and views of the minority. It also tempts the Senate GOP to preempt the Democrats by overturning the filibuster themselves. Again, like the vote on the BBB bill by House Democrats — many of whom were elected from red states — the Senate Democrats’ vote on the filibuster was an ideological statement, not one cast with the preferences of their constituents in mind.

 

What could be the reasons for this change in voting behavior? The Constitution has no provision for powerful political parties or ideologies that control the votes of their members in the House and Senate. Although political parties developed in the mid-1800s, they have never up to now had an effective way to control the votes of their members of Congress. The idea that all Democratic senators and all Republican members of the House would vote virtually as one was thought to be impossible because of the diversity of the country.

 

It’s possible, of course, that this is a just passing phase, perhaps a temporary reflection in Congress of the polarization in the country. Another possibility might be a shift in how campaign funds are allocated; contributors may be much more partisan than in the past, willing to threaten or punish those who don’t toe the party line. Both Democrats and Republicans now raise most of their funds from small contributions over the Internet by millions of ideologically motivated voters. A senator or House member who toes an ideological line might now be rewarded with more and easier-to-acquire campaign funds than in the past. The media’s bias toward the Left could also be responsible, causing Democrats to stay with their party because they fear media criticism if they differ. The media have also failed — deliberately and consistently — to inform the public about what is in the BBB bill and its likely effect on the economy and the deficit, while continuing to suggest, mistakenly, that the new voting rules the states are enacting will actually impede voting.

 

Whatever its cause, this phenomenon bears watching by specialists in politics and political science. If it has staying power, it will produce a major change in how our government has functioned for more than 200 years.