Menus Subscribe Search
congress-washington

Scene at the signing of the Constitution of the United States. (PAINTING: PUBLIC DOMAIN)

Members of Congress Are Elected to Represent, Not to Get Along

• May 07, 2013 • 8:00 AM

Scene at the signing of the Constitution of the United States. (PAINTING: PUBLIC DOMAIN)

Why attempts to characterize President Obama as a leader unable to cajole and intimidate our other elected officials are profoundly misguided.

In case you’ve missed it, there’s been a spate of op-eds recently blaming President Obama for a lack of leadership; Obama could have gotten Republican members of Congress to agree on gun control, tax increases, and many more of his legislative priorities if only he knew how to lead. What “leading” means is usually left rather vague. Ron Fournier believes it just involves “rising above circumstance,” E.J. Dionne thinks it means showing how much you enjoy your job, and Maureen Dowd thinks it means writing the names of persuadable senators on a chart, just like in an Aaron Sorkin movie. The archetype usually thrown around is that of Lyndon Johnson; he knew how to get things done, dammit. If Obama would cajole, intimidate, and horse-trade like LBJ did, the theory goes, he’d have a more impressive list of achievements by now.

Each member of Congress is elected to serve a specific geographic area of the country, and they are rewarded for representing that area and punished for betraying it.

These arguments come in many different forms, but at their base, they’re saying the same thing: Personality matters, institutions don’t. That is, a sufficiently determined president can compel members of Congress to do what he wants them to do, regardless of those members’ own priorities, concerns, and career goals.

This argument is obviously and profoundly misguided. But it’s being pushed by many of the same people who continually urge members of Congress to work past their differences, to resist the pressures placed on them by voters, and to work together for the “common good,” as though that were something intrinsically obvious.

Not to sound condescending, but there are some key elements of American politics that these pundits seem to be missing. Chief among these is that representation in the U.S. is determined by geography. President Obama is accountable to a vast constituency of over 200 million eligible voters, more than half of whom turned out to vote last year. This electorate is, by definition, moderate. The typical member of the U.S. House of Representatives, conversely, is accountable to only around 700,000 people, and they may be, on average, much more conservative or much more liberal than the American people as a whole.

Let’s just imagine a hypothetical Republican member of Congress from a conservative district. She has very little interest in working to advance the president’s agenda. Quite often, her voters will be irate with her if she works with Obama and may throw her out of office for doing so. That is to say, it is not in her professional interests to be persuaded by the president. Moreover, she grew up in that district and was selected by its voters to represent it. This isn’t some cynical game—she believes the things she is saying. That is, it is not in her personal interests to help Obama because she believes what Obama wants is actually bad for the country.

What’s more, our congressional districts and states are moving further apart from each other ideologically. Below is a histogram showing how each state voted in the presidential elections of 1968 (red) and 2012 (blue). Notice how the red distribution basically has one peak while the blue distribution has two? That’s a sign of polarization. Senators who strictly voted how their states wanted in 1968 would have behaved much more similarly to each other than those who voted their states in 2012. There’s been a similar level of polarization among congressional districts, as well.

prez vote 1968 2012

Data from David Leip.

So could LBJ just bend members of Congress to his will? Probably not. Notably, he had a hard time getting any of his priorities passed in the last few years of his term. This wasn’t because he lost his leadership skills. Rather, his party lost its gigantic majorities in 1966 and he lost much of his popularity as the Vietnam War escalated. The institutional environment mattered a lot more than his personality traits. But even if we imagine that he did have that kind of power, he was dealing with a much less polarized Congress than Obama is dealing with today.

We can criticize members of Congress all we want for failing to get along with each other or to work for the common good, but we should keep in mind that those tasks are not remotely in their job descriptions. Under the Constitution, each member is elected to serve a specific geographic area of the country, and they are rewarded for representing that area and punished for betraying it, no matter how much of an ideological outlier that area appears to be. It’s silly to expect members of Congress to ignore their own career incentives, and it’s damned weird to blame a president for failing to get them to do so.

Seth Masket
Seth Masket is a political scientist at the University of Denver, specializing in political parties, state legislatures, campaigns and elections, and social networks. He is the author of No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures (University of Michigan Press, 2009). Follow him on Twitter @smotus.

More From Seth Masket

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

September 16 • 2:00 PM

Man Up, Ladies! … But Not Too Much

Too often, women are asked to display masculine traits in order to be successful in the workplace.



September 16 • 12:00 PM

What Makes You So Smart, Brilliant 12-Year-Old?

Charles Wang is going to rule the world.


September 16 • 10:09 AM

No Innovation Without Migration: The Harlem Renaissance

The Harlem Renaissance wasn’t a place, but an era of migration. It would have happened even without New York City.


September 16 • 10:00 AM

A Law Professor Walks Into a Creative Writing Workshop

One academic makes the case for learning how to write.



September 16 • 7:23 AM

Does Not Checking Your Buddy’s Facebook Updates Make You a Bad Friend?

An etiquette expert, a social scientist, and an old pal of mine ponder the ever-shifting rules of friendship.



September 16 • 6:12 AM

3-D Movies Aren’t That Special

Psychologists find that 3-D doesn’t have any extra emotional impact.


September 16 • 6:00 AM

What Color Is Your Pygmy Goat?

The fierce battle over genetic purity, writ small. Very small.



September 15 • 4:00 PM

The Average Prisoner Is Visited Only Twice While Incarcerated

And black prisoners receive even fewer visitors.


September 15 • 2:00 PM

Gambling With America’s Health

The public health costs of legal gambling.


September 15 • 12:23 PM

The Scent of a Conservative

We are attracted to the body odor of others with similar political beliefs, according to new research.


September 15 • 12:00 PM

2014: A Pretty Average Election

Don’t get too worked up over this year’s congressional mid-terms.


September 15 • 10:00 AM

Online Harassment of Women Isn’t Just a Gamer Problem

By blaming specific subcultures, we ignore a much larger and more troubling social pathology.


September 15 • 8:00 AM

Atheists Seen as a Threat to Moral Values

New research attempts to pinpoint why non-believers are widely disliked and distrusted.


September 15 • 6:12 AM

To Protect Against Meltdowns, Banks Must Map Financial Interconnections

A new model suggests looking beyond balance sheets, studying the network of investment as well.


September 15 • 6:00 AM

Interview With a Drug Dealer

What happens when the illicit product you’ve made your living off of finally becomes legal?


September 15 • 4:00 AM

A Feeling of Control: How America Can Finally Learn to Deal With Its Impulses

The ability to delay gratification has been held up as the one character trait to rule them all—the key to academic success, financial security, and social well-being. But willpower isn’t the answer. The new, emotional science of self-regulation.



September 15 • 2:04 AM

No Innovation Without Migration: Do Places Make People?

We know that people make places, but does it also work the other way?


September 12 • 4:00 PM

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Plastic Bags

California wants you to pay for your plastic bags. (FYI: That’s not an infringement on your constitutional rights.)


September 12 • 2:00 PM

Should We Trust the Hearts of White People?

On the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, revisiting a clip of James Baldwin on the Dick Cavett Show.


September 12 • 12:00 PM

Big Government, Happy Citizens?

You may like to talk about how much happier you’d be if the government didn’t interfere with your life, but that’s not what the research shows.


Follow us


3-D Movies Aren’t That Special

Psychologists find that 3-D doesn't have any extra emotional impact.

To Protect Against Meltdowns, Banks Must Map Financial Interconnections

A new model suggests looking beyond balance sheets, studying the network of investment as well.

Big Government, Happy Citizens?

You may like to talk about how much happier you'd be if the government didn't interfere with your life, but that's not what the research shows.

Give Yourself a Present for the Future

Psychologists discover that we underestimate the value of looking back.

In Soccer as in Art, Motifs Matter

A new study suggests a way to quantitatively measure a team’s style through its pass flow. It may become another metric used to evaluate potential recruits.

The Big One

One in three drivers in Brooklyn's Park Slope—at certain times of day—is just looking for parking. The same goes for drivers in Manhattan's SoHo. September/October 2014 new-big-one-3

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.