
How Congress Stopped Working - smacktoward
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-congress-stopped-working
======
tspike
The article repeatedly points to Obama's election as a turning point. While I
won't argue that his election wasn't consequential, I think the timing is
mostly coincidental.

2008-2009 is right around when the internet became mainstream. It's when
everyone and their mothers signed up for Facebook and when people got
smartphones in their hands for the first time. Civil discourse moved almost
entirely online, which is a particularly bad venue for it.

Microtargeted ads became a thing, and fringe ideas found large audiences. If
you are looking at analytics for your electorate, which metrics "pop" more-
the reactions to middle-of-the-road, nuanced discourse, or sound bite
extremism?

------
otakucode
How does this article contain no mention of the Hastert Rule? From my vantage
point, that is what killed Congress. The Republicans were in the minority and
vowed to never vote, not even a single vote, on any proposal supported by a
Democrat no matter its contents. This is why Republicans will vote against
measures that are identical to measures they voted for only weeks or months
prior. Expect this to return in full force after they get booted next week.
Their policy is total and complete obstinate refusal to vote for anything
which is not solely originated by the Republican Party.

This makes sense from the view of politics that the primary distinction
between conservative and liberal boils down to conservatives being willing to
cheat and break any rule so long as it is in service of their in-group, while
liberals are willing to have their in-group lose if it means keeping the
'game' fair.

------
rajekas
The United States minus Congress is essentially the Chinese system with two
parties instead of one - overwhelming authority for the executive, overt and
covert threats to get with the program. Not surprising, since our networked,
interconnected world concentrates everything - wealth, fame, power etc.

I wonder how much of the balance of power is due to asymmetries of knowledge
and expertise. We live in a very complex world and the President (perhaps not
this one!) has access to top-drawer talent and large, specialized institutions
whose job is to crunch the data to suit his mood. How can generalists who
spend most of their time fund-raising hope to compete with the executive
branch?

