James Wallner argues that lawmakers and reformers treat Congress as a technical problem solvable by rules and expertise, while the real issue is a misunderstanding of politics that treats disagreement as a defect rather than the mechanism for collective judgment.
Public frustration with Congress is unusually high even as scientific and technological progress accelerates, creating a sharp contrast between policymaking and other national achievements.
Many reform proposals assume Congress is dysfunctional because of poor design and can be fixed by procedural or institutional engineering.
Wallner contends the core problem is the ‘scientification’ of politics: treating political disputes as technical problems with objectively correct answers.
# Broken Americans report record-high dissatisfaction with politics and especially with Congress. Gallup surveys show approval of Congress near historic lows. At the same time, other fields—technology, science, and medicine—have produced rapid, visible progress since about 2007. That contrast sharpens public puzzlement: why can people and firms solve complex problems while Congress struggles with routine tasks like passing appropriations or moving major policy proposals?
# The Reform Turn: Technical Fixes Many proposals to "fix" Congress treat the institution like a machine that needs a better operating system. Ideas on the table include:
Those proposals target different problems, but they share an assumption: the dysfunction is technical and solvable by smarter institutional design.
# Politics Wallner calls this assumption backwards. He traces the deeper source to the age's faith in scientific methods. Science produces steadily improving knowledge by testing claims against evidence and building cumulative results. That approach serves the natural world extremely well. The problem is applying the same epistemic expectations to politics.
When political arguments are framed as if there is an objectively correct answer discoverable by experts or models, political disagreement is re-cast as an error to be corrected rather than as a living process of collective judgment. Lawmakers increasingly present studies, empirical models, and expert consensus as if those settle the political question. Evidence becomes treated as able to resolve the normative judgments that remain after factual issues are established.
# Effective
# Reframing the Problem
# Bottom line Procedural and structural reforms may help with specific bottlenecks, but they miss the root cause if they are driven by the assumption that politics should be made technical. Restoring Congress's ability to govern requires accepting that political disagreement is an essential part of legislative judgment, not a malfunction to be engineered away.
Everyone with a plan to fix Congress wants to help it legislate again by making it easier for lawmakers to compromise. Some call for electing more moderates to serve in the House and Senate. And others want to empower party leaders to impose deadlines, block amendments, and limit debate. But they all share the same […]
The federal government had a record $432 billion deficit in July and hit the $40 trillion total debt threshold in August — and Congress took a break.
Party leaders are angry at two Democrats for doing exactly what good legislators are supposed to do.
U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., returned to Tucson from Washington, D.C., Tuesday night to denounce the House’s early departure from Washington, criticize Republican-led committee priorities and make the case for Democratic majorities in Congress and Arizona government. She spoke at an event hosted by Democrats of
In my inaugural entry for this column, I critiqued the Supreme Court’s reliance on an abstract conception of the “separation of powers.” Because the Constitution does not contain a “separation of powers” clause, but instead contains a collection of specific provisions that enforce the separation of powers in specific w
The dialectical battle between traditionalists and lovers of liberty has given us brilliant debates over the past few centuries, but also countless missed opportunities. The battle for freedom must be fought continuously, because whenever it is not being fought, freedom retreats; it is always under threat. We see this
Loading more related stories...
Open the app view to save this story, compare related coverage, and continue from the same source.