public:cb_mirror:how_long_will_we_just_elect_better_people_txt_blogposts_30434
To view this on the COS website, click here how-long-will-we-just-elect-better-people
How long will we “just elect better people”?
Breaking flawed congressional incentives.
| On the first centennial of American independence, President James Garfield opined that, “Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation.” Of course, this is true in the broadest possible sense. However, it’s also true that governments, even representative ones, can become entirely insular, aloof and detached from the will of the people. “Sure, that’s probably true of others,” you may protest. “But my congressman is the real deal. He kisses babies and shakes hands at state fairs. I even met him at my favorite local diner! He seems like a genuinely great guy.” Maybe. But has it ever crossed your mind that politicians act differently once they get to Washington? The fact of the matter is that most politicians probably care about you on a personal level — that is, they care about getting your vote. If you’re passionate about saving the local black-footed ferret population, they’ll listen attentively. They may even promise to “look into it” and “see what I can do.” But if they take that same people-pleasing mentality to Washington, they will quickly fall in line with their new, more powerful associates. To this day, many people hold to the antiquated notion that we can course-correct Congress simply by electing better people and kicking out those who flout our values. If only it were that simple! Unfortunately, Congress has been corrupted, not just by “bad people” but by bad incentive structures that reward bad behavior. A 2023 study showed that “hyper-partisan” members of Congress — Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Rashida Tlaib, Maxine Waters, etc. — “received more than 4x the coverage their bipartisan colleagues did around the 2022 midterm elections across the most-viewed online news sites and cable news programs as well as the nation’s four morning shows.” On the Republican side, for example, Rep. Greene starred in 335 news pieces, while less outspoken members of the party received little to no media attention; similarly, Rep. Gaetz appeared in over 100 news items, while a Republican colleague from the same state did not appear in a single piece. That is a bad incentive structure. It means we reward our congresspeople for treating politics like entertainment. With 435 members of the House of Representatives, many remain virtually unknown to a national audience; others, however, have become ubiquitous celebrities. And stardom in D.C. is not achieved by solving problems or making a difference but by running one’s mouth in bankable clips meant for social media and TV. Your favorite representative may deliver impressive, fiery monologues to a half-empty chamber while the C-SPAN cameras roll, but can you name a single thing they’ve accomplished? One of the many topics members of Congress like to talk about — indeed, probably one of the most talked-about topics in the D.C. media arena — is cutting spending and addressing the national debt. To hear them tell the story, they’re waging war on the national debt like Hercules against the Nemean lion. In reality, they’re feeding the beast and stroking its mane. So what? Kick them out and send true fiscal conservatives to replace them. Presumably, that’s what Elon Musk hopes to accomplish with his “America Party.” But haven’t we tried that before? In 2010, Tea Party candidates staged “the biggest GOP wave since the 1920s,” vowing to deliver the nation from looming financial collapse. Their tremendous success at the polls spotlighted the growing pressure for Washington to crack down on deficit spending. But did it change anything? Fifteen years later, the national debt has grown from $13 trillion to $37 trillion, and the daily cost of government, even under a Republican administration, is breaking records. So no. By 2013, even many Republicans had soured on the Tea Party for failing to implement their promised reforms, with public disapproval climbing from 25% in 2010 to nearly 50 percent. It quickly became clear that the “outsiders” had acclimated to a broken system — almost as if an incentive structure existed in Congress to ensure endless government spending regardless of the outcome of the election. Elon Musk may have money, but what makes him think that his third-party option can break that trend? It’s not that the Tea Party candidates didn’t genuinely care about limited government or fiscal responsibility. Most of them probably did. But their idealism was eventually (and predictably) swallowed up, blunted, or discarded in an institution where saving money simply isn’t an option. Not even an army of the most penny-pinching Dave Ramseys, backed by Musk, would deviate from that norm. A recent article from Christopher Rufo lamenting Musk’s ultimate impotence with DOGE ended with the dour observation: “Our fate lies in the hands of Congress—and that should make Americans pessimistic.” But who said it has to be that way? Perhaps President Garfield had a point. Perhaps Congress only keeps spending money because we want it to. But what would happen if the people banded together to rewrite the rules of Congress to incentivize, or, better yet, require fiscal responsibility? Congress is a college that teaches thriftlessness and waste, and we are the parents who keep sending our kids and acting surprised when they return as prodigals. What else did we expect? We need to reform the college itself, ensuring that the institution, not just the faculty and student body, remains accountable to the parents. Until then, why would we keep sending our kids back? A third party won’t make that change. But an Article V convention might. How long will we “just elect better people”? Until our national debt reaches $70 trillion? Eighty trillion? Ninety trillion? Until our kids and grandchildren have no hope of ever owning their own homes? Until everything they make goes directly to the government to pay off our bills? It’s time for something different. Sign the petition below for an Article V convention to propose amendments limiting federal spending, power, and terms of office. # | PETITION_WIDGET{petition_tag:comms_blog_NA_07/14/2025_howlongwillwe“justelectbetterpeople”?07142025;coalition_id:;anedot_url:} | # |
| Page Metadata | |
| Login Required to view? | No |
| Created: | 2025-07-15 00:07 GMT |
| Updated: | 2025-07-21 07:00 GMT |
| Published: | 2025-07-15 00:00 GMT |
| Converted: | 2025-11-11 12:06 GMT |
| Change Author: | Jakob Fay |
| Credit Author: | |
public/cb_mirror/how_long_will_we_just_elect_better_people_txt_blogposts_30434.txt · Last modified: 2025/11/11 12:06 by 127.0.0.1