In December 2018, the longest government shutdown in the United States began. Among the causes of the shutdown were disagreements over financing a U.S.-Mexico border wall and funding government agencies. Democrats and Republicans each rejected proposals of the other and could not find common ground to move the budget talks along. Numerous government agencies were affected, and some had to partially stop providing their services; the most notable was the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). When New York’s LaGuardia Airport had to shut down due to TSA short staffing, the population and the government took notice. After 35 days, the shutdown came to an end when President Trump signed a bipartisan spending bill.

Influences on Congress

Congress’s effectiveness is determined by its ideological division, the changing nature of the job, the citizens lawmakers represent, and the way lawmakers represent them. Intensifying partisanship has caused gridlock–the “congestion” of opposing forces that prevents ideas from moving forward-within each house and between the Congress and the president. Also, the reshaping of House voting districts has created one-party rule in several districts, making winning legislative seats too easy for some members and practically impossible for others. Bitter election contests and longer campaign periods have put Republican and Democratic members at further odds. And legislators’ differing approaches on voting have shaped the institution.

Partisanship and Polarization

The legislature has developed into a partisan and sometimes uncivil institution. A variety of factors has driven a wedge between liberal and conservative members and has placed them at points farther from the middle on each end of the ideological spectrum. From the 1950s into the 1970s, political scientists complained that on many issues it was difficult to tell the parties apart. As Republicans retired, more conservative Republicans replaced them. Southern Democrats, once a moderating force in Congress, have all but disappeared. Party-line voting is much more common than it once was, while straying from party positions has become dangerous for those interested in reelection.

Voting Models

Party leaders encourage members to follow the party-line vote, especially if political favors are expected. Other members are ideologically aligned with certain groups who back them at election time. Those following the lead of their party or some other group are operating in what is known as an organizational way.

However, different lawmakers use differing voting models, or approaches to how they vote. Those members trying to reflect the will of their constituency, especially in the House, follow the delegate model. At a town hall meeting in one member’s district, an irritated and upset constituent shot down his representatives explanation for an unpopular vote. “We didn’t send you to Washington to make intelligent decisions,” the angry voter said, “we sent you to represent us.” That representation can be substantive- that is, advocating on behalf of certain groups of constituents-or it can be descriptive, advocating not only for the views of constituents but also for the factors that make those constituents unique, such as geography, occupation, gender, and ethnicity.

Some members, especially in the Senate, vote according to the trustee model. Representatives believe they are entrusted by their constituency to use their best judgment, regardless of how constituents may view an issue. This approach sidesteps any concern over an uninformed constituency reacting from emotion rather than reason and knowledge.

The politico model of voting attempts to blend the delegate and trustee models. That is, lawmakers consider a variety of factors and decide their action or vote for whatever political calculations make the most sense to them at the time, especially when there seems to be little public concern. On matters generating strong public opinion, representatives using the politico model would take those opinions strongly into account.

Redistricting

Following the constitutionally required census every ten years, the reshaping of congressional districts based on shifts in population has influenced congressional behavior. State legislatures’ redistricting processes are often competitive and contentious, and members of both parties vie to strengthen their party’s chances of winning congressional elections. The redistricting process has increased partisanship and decreased accountabilities. The majority party in the state legislature often determines the new statewide congressional map, usually benefiting that party.

How district boundaries are drawn has an enormous impact on levels of democratic participation and the makeup of the House of Representatives, which in turn has an enormous impact on public policy. Until the 1960s, legislative districting was regarded as having too much political and partisan conflict for the Supreme Court to get involved, since the Court’s reputation of neutrality is vital to its authority. However, a landmark decision in 1962 opened the door for the Supreme Court to play a role in making legislative districts as democratic as possible.

Gerrymandering

Too often, there are illogical district lines drawn to give the advantage to one party, a process called gerrymandering. Districts in which a party consistently wins by more than 55 percent of the vote are considered safe seats; those districts with closer elections are referred to as marginal seats or swing districts. Countless districts across the United States have been carved out to guarantee safe seats and one-party rule through a process known as partisan gerrymandering. Today, each party has more than 180 safe seats in Congress, meaning there are only about 75 marginal seats up for grabs. Certain victory for incumbents or for candidates of the majority party of districts with safe seats lowers the incentive to compromise and raises the incentive to stick with party doctrine. The large number of safe seats encourages a vast proportion of Congress members to take a far left or far right position. Partly because of that divide, at the end of a legislative session, fewer policies that address and appease the middle-the vast majority of the American people- will ever get beyond a committee hearing.

This gerrymandering of safe-seat congressional districts has sometimes made the primary election the determining race and made the general election in November a mere formality. “Getting primaried” has become the new term explaining how an ideologically more extreme challenger can expose an incumbent’s record of compromise or tilt away from party positions in order to defeat him or her when the party faithful make that decision. Such challengers are often backed by special interests.

The result is a system of nominating the more conservative Republican or more liberal Democratic candidates who will ultimately win the primary and face off with their extreme counterparts in their respective legislative chambers. ‘This system has shrunk the number of moderates in Congress. To counter this tactic, several states through citizen ballot initiatives and state laws have created independent commissions to remove the parties’ dominance in the process of drawing the maps.

Racial Gerrymandering

The intentional drawing of legislative districts on the basis of race has also been the subject of scrutiny for conflicting reasons. First, it has been used to dilute the votes of African Americans and therefore has been found to violate their Fifteenth Amendment voting rights. Second, in well-intentioned overcorrections of this problem, racial gerrymandering was found to violate other voters’ rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. This latter issue was the focus of another landmark redistricting decision from the Supreme Court, Shaw v. Reno (1993).

Divided Government and Senate Showdowns

Government is divided when the president is from one party and the House and/or Senate is dominated by the other. It fuels partisan gridlock, especially with judicial nominations. As the Supreme Court has become the arbiter of law on affirmative action, abortion, marriage equality, and gun rights, the fight between the parties about who sits on the Court has intensified.

In 2016, after the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Democratic President Barack Obama nominated District of Columbia Circuit Judge Merrick Garland to replace him. However, the Republican-held Senate, in a rare though not unprecedented move, refused to consider his nomination during Obama’s last year in office. At the time, President Obama was a so-called “lame duck” president, or executive who has not won reelection or who is closing in on the end of the second presidential term, highlighting the partisan divide in government. In 2017, President Trump nominated conservative judge Neil Gorsuch to the Scalia seat. Gorsuch was quickly confirmed by a Republican-dominated Senate.

In 2018, an even more contentious confirmation hearing took place over President Trump’s nominated Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Democratic senators grilled Kavanaugh on a number of issues, but the most heated discussions revolved around the alleged sexual misconduct of Kavanaugh in the early 1980s. The Republican-held Senate eventually confirmed Kavanaugh.

In both chambers, real floor debate has been replaced by carefully orchestrated speeches, while combative media-hungry lawmakers face off in head-to-head confrontations on cable TV news. As historian Lewis Gould put it, “In this hectic atmosphere of perpetual campaigning, the older values of collegiality and comity, though rarer than senatorial memory had it, eroded to the point of virtual disappearance.”

Congress’s Public Image

When people asked humorist Will Rogers where he got his jokes, he replied, “Why I just watch Congress and report the facts.” Critics from Mark Twain to comedian Jon Stewart have cast Congress in a bad light. The media have also contributed to its tarnished reputation. Members’ conflicts of interest and an increased number of scandals have given the institution a black eye.

All of these factors help to create an image of an uncaring, “do nothing” Congress. The branch’s overall approval rating, as measured by Gallup, hovered in the mid-30 percent range in the early 1970s. Over the past decade, it has generally fallen below 20 percent.

Yet most individual members of Congress enjoy about a 60 percent approval rating from their constituents. Veteran Congressman Lee Hamilton (D-IN, 1965-1999) once suggested this help-wanted ad to better define the job description: “Wanted: A person with wide-ranging knowledge of scores of complex policy issues. Must be willing to work long hours in Washington, then fly home to attend an unending string of community events. Applicant should expect that work and travel demands will strain family life, and that every facet of public and private life will be subject to intense scrutiny and criticism.”