Hearings of the
Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House
Proposals Emanating from the Second Bipartisan Congressional Retreat
Is civility—or the lack of it—a problem for the House of Representatives? Is there less than there used to be and, if so, should we be seriously concerned?
Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s report tempers the prevalent view that recent years have seen a steep and unrelieved decline in civility. Her quantitative measures paint a more nuanced picture. Most of her quantitative measures of incivility show a decline, often to earlier levels, after a high point in the first session of the 104th Congress. (In many but not all cases, the impeachment debate at the end of the 105th scores high on the incivility indicators.) Nevertheless, evidence that the House of the 1990s is a less civil place than the House of the previous post-World War II decades is incontrovertible. The scholarly and the journalistic literature, the reports of participants and observers agree that comity, civility, mutual respect and even friendliness used to be much more common in the House. A member characterized life in the House of the 1950s as existing in a “cocoon of good feelings.” No one would so characterize life in the 1990s House.
If the House is a less civil place, is that a problem? In several respects it is. Public confidence in Congress, seldom very high, is undermined further by name calling and other displays of incivility. As Hibbings and Theiss-Morse have shown, the public understanding of and tolerance for the ordinary political process with its disagreements, debates and maneuvering is not high. The House’s worst moments often make the best TV news stories, so notable instances of incivility on the floor powerfully reinforce the public’s negative views.
To the extent that incivility and even hostility makes serving in the House less attractive, it is also a problem. In evaluating House procedures and practices, the comfort of its members is not a top priority; yet if the House becomes a place where only the most belligerent are willing to make a career, the consequences for public support and for policy are likely to be dire.
The question, then, is not whether civility is valuable and should be fostered. Of course, it should. Rather the question is: how should it be encouraged and what tradeoffs should one-- and should one not-- be willing to make to further civility? I agree with Professor Jamieson that “civility and strong partisanship are not mutually exclusive” (p13) . Still, when the parties are strongly polarized and the divergent policy views are intensely held, civility is harder to maintain.
A very brief review of the history of the House in the post-World War II era can shed some light on the likely tradeoffs. The literature and personal accounts suggests that the House was at its high point in terms of comity in the 1950s and early 1960s. This was a period in which partisan differences were blurred; although nominally controlled by Democrats, the House was often really dominated by a conservative coalition of Republicans and conservative southern Democrats. Committee chairs, chosen solely on the basis of seniority, were strong and largely independent of their party; rules, norms and a lack of resources such as staff constrained the participation of rank- and- file members. Much of the legislative process took place behind closed doors.
All these traits probably contributed to civility in the House—but at a considerable cost. The opportunity for rank-and -file members to participate meaningfully in the legislative process in committee or on the floor was tightly constrained. Accountability was meager. Committee chairs, although nominally chosen by the majority party, could not be held accountable by their fellow party members. And with the blurring of party lines and the weakness of party leaders, the public could not easily hold anyone accountable for the functioning of the House.
The 1970s and 1980s saw the House, and both parties within it, undergo a series of reforms and adaptations that resulted in more opportunities for rank and file participation, more openness and more accountability. Committees and committee leaders became less independent and more responsive to their party caucuses. Party leaders, especially majority party leaders, were granted the powers and resources to enable them to truly lead the House, so long as they had the support of a relatively homogeneous party membership. A cause and also an effect of these changes was increasing partisan polarization.
I have undertaken this brief review to lay the groundwork for my argument about what should and should not be done to promote civility. Most particularly, I want to argue against making changes that would undermine the majority-rule character of the House and thus make the body unworkable. Proposal #1 under Action Steps, if it were to give the minority new rights in rules, could very well produce undesirable side effects. How do you give the minority new rights in the realm of legislative scheduling and floor procedure choices without giving them new ways of obstructing the majority? The House is a large body that depends on rules; it cannot rely on informal accommodation and, if it tries, it could easily become incapable of making decisions. The majority is responsible for what happens on its watch and needs the institutional powers to allow it to prevail when it commands a majority of the entire House.
The majority party would be well advised to be flexible and accommodating to the minority party in scheduling, floor procedure, resources such as committee staff, and committee ratios when it can do so without sacrificing too much. We are in a period of close party balances in the House; very likely control will shift back and forth, with neither party having large margins. It would thus be in the self interest of the current majority to set precedents of generosity. In addition, the informal Action Steps, especially those promoting greater communication between the leaderships and among members across party lines are to be encouraged. I would also recommend again considering the “3 weeks in Washington, 1 week at home” scheduling option. Members do not have the time to get to know each other the way they used to—certainly not across party lines. And fewer harried and jet lagged members might contribute to civility as well.
In conclusion, I would urge you to be careful when making changes in House rules. It took the House until the beginning of this century to establish in rules the rights of the majority to work its will. The barriers to a reasonably cohesive majority working its will that had grown up during the committee government era were swept away by the reforms of the 1970s and the adaptations of the 1980s. Don’t sacrifice the House’s majority rule character in an attempt to foster civility. The House is large in membership and confronts a big and complex workload; undermining the power of the majority to work its will undermines the capacity of the House to legislate.
