MK

Notes on Congress: public opinion, polarization, and structural dynamics (based on transcript)

Congress in the U.S. Constitution: role, history, and public perception

  • The lecture begins by framing Congress as the largest section of the Constitution, and that we’ll go through this one next with the expectation that we will understand Congress’s role and how Congress has changed throughout American history, leading up to today.
  • The central question asked: Why does everyone hate Congress? The speaker notes that Congress has had a busy, long-standing pattern of low or highly variable approval ratings for about fifteen years.

Public opinion and approval ratings

  • As of the “twentieth” (eight days ago in the transcript), Congress’s approval rating is 24\%, described as relatively consistent for the last few months.
  • The lowest approval rating mentioned is in the 9\%-11\% range.
  • Since entering 2023 and into 2024, there are statements that approval has been consistently below 3\% at times, with a claim that in 2024 it was as low as 12\% approval and 70\% disapproved (a figure noted as slightly higher than in more recent times).
  • Throughout Biden’s administration, the approval ratings are described as consistently being above 8\% or in the high seventies in terms of disapproval (the wording is a bit ambiguous here in the transcript, but the point is that there is a large disapproval tail during Biden’s presidency).
  • There is also a group that “doesn’t give a crap,” estimated at about 5\%-7\%.
  • In September of 2023, a notably low figure of 1\% didn’t care about Congress.
  • Overall, the speaker portrays Congress as having a volatile public image with large swings and a persistent high disapproval rate.

Why Congress is perceived as ineffectual

  • Two main reasons are given:
    • Congress must work as a whole to be successful, making consensus difficult due to divergent member interests.
    • Long-term, nation-benefiting ideas are often unpopular because their effects are not immediately visible; short-term goals or benefits tend to be more salient to the public.
  • The emphasis on long-term policy difficulties is linked to a common political narrative: cuts to entitlement programs (e.g., Medicare, Social Security) require people to bear a potential personal cost in the future, which reduces current political incentives.
  • A nod to constitutional design: Federalist-era concerns about balancing immediate benefits with future costs; the speaker cites a Federalist perspective on how actions beneficial now may prove costly later.
  • “The size of it makes it a slow operating machine.” The large size of Congress contributes to gridlock, filibusters, and general difficulty in moving policy forward.
  • The size also can make individuals feel insignificant in a big body, especially in a political environment where the institution is unpopular.
  • The transcript notes that congressional public scrutiny has increased due to the public nature of records (e.g., social media and public visibility of members’ actions).
  • There is a discussion of accountability mechanisms: ideas about grading members by:
    • Net worth changes since joining Congress
    • Amount of money taken from lobbyists and big interest groups
    • Money coming from average people
    • How often they return home to meet with constituents
  • Example given: Greg Stanton, representative of Arizona’s 4th District (covering Chandler, Tempe, Mesa, Gilbert areas):
    • He has reportedly made “hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock trading since he joined Congress.”
    • He claims to be “home” and to have town halls, but a town hall that was scheduled (or held) was canceled; the month of August is described as a recess period when Congress “leaves and does not work” so members return to their districts.
    • Anecdotes about visits to Arby’s with seniors (a humorous aside about talking to a few people in a fast-food restaurant during a district visit).
  • These points illustrate concerns about accountability, transparency, and the effectiveness of congressional outreach to constituents.

Partisan polarization and the media’s role

  • A major issue highlighted is partisan polarization: members often refuse to work with the other side even when a policy would benefit their districts, labeling cross-party collaboration as betrayal (e.g., calling colleagues “traitors” or “RINOs” for working with the other party).
  • The speaker notes that the polarization has grown over the last few decades and has become more pronounced due to what major American institutions feed into it: the media.
  • Media polarization example: listening to different outlets (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) shapes perceptions; coverage tends to frame issues through a partisan lens, exaggerating or mischaracterizing positions.
  • Anecdotes about media coverage around prominent figures (e.g., criticism of President Trump, or Obama’s emotional response to the Sandy Hook tragedy) illustrate how media narratives can frame political events and responses.
  • The maps showing congressional districts: a large share of districts are coded as strongly Republican or strongly Democrat, with only a minority previously classified as swing districts in the 1980s and 1990s; under Clinton-era rhetoric about fiscal responsibility, bipartisanship used to be more common.
  • Identity politics and party identity themes are discussed as drivers of polarization: individuals increasingly classify themselves and others strictly by party label, reducing cross-party dialogue.
  • Personal and family anecdotes illustrate changing norms: younger generations report avoiding political discussions to prevent conflict, while older generations used to discuss politics more peacefully.
  • The speaker emphasizes that contemporary political culture often treats cross-party engagement as unacceptable or dangerous, turning discussions into moral judgments (e.g., labeling opponents as extremists).

The enumerated powers and structural distinctions

  • Reference to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: there is a list of the explicit powers Congress can exercise, described as about 18 specific powers.
  • The speaker notes that Congress’s design differs from the European parliamentary model; a common misconception is that Parliament is the same as Congress.
  • Clarification provided:
    • The English system’s House of Commons is the closest analog to the U.S. Congress, but the analogy is imperfect; Parliament is a different political structure with a Prime Minister and a monarch, while Congress is a bicameral legislature with separate powers and checks and balances.
  • Etymology and framing:
    • The term congress derives from Latin and means “to come together.”
    • A humorous aside: the speaker mentions that a congress is also a gathering of baboons, which is a provocative joke reflecting the speaker’s satirical tone about the institution.

Congress vs Parliament: structural and procedural contrasts

  • The Commons (House of Commons) in England is sometimes treated as a loose parallel to Congress, but the comparison is imperfect because of different constitutional arrangements (e.g., the role of the monarchy, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, and party dynamics).
  • The United States Constitution creates a distinctly designed legislative branch with enumerated powers in Article I, a separation of powers, and bicameralism (two chambers with different powers and checks). This structural design contributes to the slow pace of legislation but is intended to prevent hasty decisions.

Recess, accountability, and engagement with districts

  • The August recess is described as a time for Congress members to return home to meet constituents. The speaker notes that some members use this time to attend events (benefits, local restaurants) and hold town halls, though these events can be sparse or cancelled (as in the Greg Stanton example).
  • The district visit dynamic is underlined: public skepticism about whether representatives are truly responsive to district needs, given travel, schedules, and media criticism.

Connections to foundational principles and real-world relevance

  • The discussion ties to foundational principles of government:
    • Separation of powers and checks and balances
    • The importance of compromise and the trade-offs between efficiency and representation
    • The tension between short-term political incentives and long-term policy objectives
  • Real-world relevance includes debates over Medicare and Social Security, the politics of budgetary decisions, and the practical consequences of polarization for governance and public trust.

Ethical, philosophical, and practical implications

  • Ethical questions around accountability: to what extent should members’ financial disclosures and interactions with lobbyists be scrutinized and judged by the public?
  • Philosophical concerns about democratic legitimacy when a large, diverse body struggles to enact policy due to ideological divides and media-driven polarization.
  • Practical implications include the difficulty of passing long-term reforms, the potential for stagnation, and the risk that districts feel neglected if representatives cannot work across party lines.

Notable numerical references (LaTeX-formatted)

  • Current approval: 24\% (as of the 20th, eight days ago)
  • Lowest approval range: 9\% \text{ to } 11\%
  • Mention of approval trends in 2023–2024: "consistently below 3\%" and, at one point, "{12}\% approval" in 2024 with 70\% disapproval
  • Don’t-care share: 5\% \text{ to } 7\%; peak don’t-care noted as 1\% (September 2023)
  • Representative example: Greg Stanton (Arizona, 4th District) had "hundreds of thousands of dollars" in stock trading since taking office
  • District features mentioned: Tempe, Chandler, Mesa, Gilbert (east/west/central areas)
  • August recess claim: Congress leaves in August and does not work during that month

Summary takeaways for exam prep

  • Congress is designed to be deliberate and slow, with a strong emphasis on minority rights and checks-and-balances, which explains why it can seem ineffective or gridlocked.
  • Public opinion is highly polarized and volatile, with large portions of the public disapproving of Congress, and a small but vocal segment of people who do not care.
  • Polarization is reinforced by partisan media, district demographics, and identity politics, making cross-party compromise harder and reinforcing “us vs. them” mentalities.
  • Accountability concerns include financial disclosures, lobbying influence, and district engagement, which are scrutinized (sometimes through social media) and can influence public perception.
  • The Congress’s design (Article I, Section 8; enumerated powers) and its distinction from the parliamentary system shape how laws are made and how the two houses interact, contributing to both the strengths and the challenges of U.S. governance.