Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congress needs fixing, but it got some advice from an unexpected source

US Capitol
Getty Images

Fitch is the president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation and a former congressional staffer.

After watching President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address earlier this month, it would be easy to conclude that members of Congress have little interest in, and do not value, civility, bipartisanship and collaboration as a means to address the challenges our nation faces. But a recent survey of some other folks who were also in the House chamber the same night shows those principles are still respected on Capitol Hill. These people are the men and women who work as staff in Congress.

The Congressional Management Foundation conducted a survey of senior congressional staff late last year and the results offer a roadmap to improving Congress as an institution. It also showed some positive signs that when members of Congress work in a civil and bipartisan fashion, they can actually improve our democratic institutions.


The survey and study, “The State of the Congress 2024,” is by no means a ringing endorsement of the legislative branch. In fact, when staffers were asked whether they agree with the statement, “Congress currently functions as a democratic legislature should,” only 19 percent agreed.

“Dictating is not governing, and governing requires compromise, which seems to be more difficult to obtain with the recent classes of representatives,” said a legislative director for a House Republican.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Yet civility and bipartisanship were clearly identified as necessary for Congress to succeed. Republicans (85 percent) and Democrats (70 percent) said civility was “very important” to a functioning legislature; and 60 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of Democrats said encouraging bipartisanship was “very important.” And a large number (96 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Republicans) agreed that “it is necessary for Senators and Representatives to collaborate across party lines to best meet the needs of the nation.”

A Republican chief of staff on the House side said: “What we need is more people on both sides of the aisle who are more interested in persuading with facts, rather than seeing nonsense that gets them on TV or a bump in their fundraising.”

One disturbing finding arising from the research is the increasing state of fear for staff working in the institution. “The mental strain of dealing with constituent anger is burdening. I can certainly understand the balance of access to our elected officials and safety. But the vitriol has gotten worse every year that I have worked for Congress,” said a House Democratic district director.

Democrats (68 percent) and Republicans (73 percent) similarly report personally experiencing "direct insulting or threatening messages or communication" at least "somewhat frequently." It’s alarming that there are people who feel it’s OK to spew vitriol at congressional staff and fire off death threats to elected officials.

Importantly, the rising volume of rhetoric could affect whether congressional staff stay in their jobs. When asked how frequently they questioned “whether I should stay in Congress due to heated rhetoric from my party,” 59 percent of Republican staff said they are at least somewhat frequently considering leaving Congress, compared to 16 percent of Democrats.

A House Republican deputy chief of staff said it this way: “Typically when asked about civility I think about it in the bipartisan context. But civility between members of the same party has declined dramatically.”

Yet the research did yield some good news. Since 2019, the House of Representatives has engaged in a bipartisan and constructive effort to improve the capacity of the institution to function. The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress and the new Subcommittee on Modernization are model efforts in problem-solving in legislatures. We compared the recent survey results with identical questions posed to similar congressional staff in 2022, and in every area staff satisfaction improved. Staff satisfaction with Congress’ access to high-quality, nonpartisan expertise more than doubled in two years. Similarly, satisfaction with the technological infrastructure also doubled the “very satisfied” rating.

“While there is always more that can be done, over the years I've worked at the House I think there's been an impressive evolution in support services offered to employees,” said a House Democratic chief of staff.

The leaders of these efforts are to be commended as outstanding public servants seeking solutions to institutional problems. The chairs and vice chairs of these congressional panels – Reps. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.), William Timmons (R-S.C.) and Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.) – have demonstrated remarkable creativity, persistence, and collaboration to enact genuine and tangible reforms to how Congress operates. While recent research shows Congress has a long way to go to reach the vision of our founders to build “a more perfect union,” congressional staff have offered both confirmation that progress can be made in this area and guidance on what still needs to be done.

Read More

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less