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.
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.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.