RODNEY DANGERFIELD’S famous line accurately diagnoses Congress’s popularity problem–based on recent polling, lawmakers collectively get little respect from the public. But if 80 percent of success really is just showing up, then Woody Allen may have their solution.
Last year Republicans on Capitol Hill began asking a version of the “respect” question: Why does Congress work so hard racking up legislative accomplishments only to see their poll numbers go south? And, adding insult to injury, why do few voters believe congressional actions on tax cuts, energy policy, tort reform, or a highway bill have any connection to the strong GDP, low inflation, and booming job creation of the last few years?
Polls underscore these concerns, showing congressional approval plummeting from 43 percent in January to 29 percent in December–nearing the 10-year low reached prior to the 1994 election, despite what Republicans believed were stellar accomplishments.
Political scientists John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse explore the keys to congressional popularity in their book, The Stealth Congress. They argue that laundry lists of accomplishments don’t necessarily translate to better poll numbers because most voters don’t pay attention to the specifics of legislation. They care less about what Congress does and more about how they do it. Process–defined not in the detailed procedural sense, but in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, fairness, and tone–is more important than policy. According to Hibbing and Theiss-Morse:
In earlier work, over a decade ago Hibbing and Theiss-Morse found that voters would rather their representatives spend time at home listening to the people than in “special interest”-infested Washington.
Fast forward 10 years, and the pattern still holds. Last month, a colleague of mine conducting focus group research made some interesting findings. First, consistent with Hibbing and Theiss-Morse’s research, most voters didn’t have a clue about specific congressional accomplishments. Taking time to learn about specific legislation seemed like a distraction. “Just show me the results; it’s Congress’ job to worry about the details,” was a common view. This attitude also underscored lawmakers’ problem: How do you get credit for something when your audience isn’t really paying much attention?
Another theme in the focus groups deepened the mystery. When asked what would make them feel more positive about Congress, voters responded in a surprising way. A few mentioned specific policy concerns, while others wanted an end to inside-the-beltway bickering. Yet a lot of people mentioned something unusual: attendance–just “showing up.” Apparently many citizens think their representatives go to Washington and just slack off.
So could lawmakers fix the Rodney Dangerfield “no respect” problem by deploying the Woody Allen solution? Voters want lawmakers who attend sessions regularly when they’re in Washington, but they also say lawmakers need a better connection with the folks back home to avoid Potomac fever infection, which is easily transmitted by excessive contact with special interests. We tested this idea several ways in a recent national survey (800 registered voters, +/-3.5% margin of error, conducted January 17-22, 2006) and discovered that both “showing up” and going home matter.
First we asked voters which one of the following is most important in evaluating their congressman: attendance at votes, how many bills they introduced, how much money they returned to the taxpayer, how much information they shared on their website and by mail, and how much time they spent at home in their districts. Forty percent chose attendance, followed by time in the district and money returned to taxpayers (each at 17 percent).
Next we asked voters to rate on a seven-point scale their agreement with the statement that members of Congress come back to their districts too much. A clear majority (60 percent) fell on the strongly disagree side of the scale, while only 20 percent agreed. We also probed whether Congress was too heavily influenced by special interests in its decision making: a robust 81 percent agreed, and only 12 percent disagreed. Finally, using the same scale we asked if voters wished members of Congress communicated more directly with their constituents. Again, an overwhelming majority (71 percent) expressed that desire, and only 13 percent disagreed.
These findings provide a window into why Congress, as an institution, is unpopular. Most voters feel lawmakers spend too much time in Washington and not enough time at home, connecting with and listening to their constituents. They also want more personal, direct contact with their lawmakers. Both of these aspirations seem connected to a desire to limit “special interest” influence. And voters clearly believe attendance at votes in Congress is one of the most important criteria in evaluating legislative job performance.
Woody Allen’s dictum seems to apply to lawmaking as well as life achievement–showing up, in Washington and back home, is the key component to success.
Gary Andres is vice chairman, Research and Policy at Dutko Worldwide, a Washington-based public affairs firm. He also writes a weekly column on politics for the Washington Times and a twice-monthly column on polling called The American Survey.
