Save Money in this Sunday's paper

Who we interviewed for the stories

comments

Will Capitol Hill leaders bargain or battle?

How can our politically divided Congress move forward for the good of the nation? The Observer asked for answers from political experts and politicians on both sides of the aisle. You can join the discussion Friday at the inaugural “Solving It Toge

More Information

  • Voices: Solving it together
  • Will Capitol Hill leaders bargain or battle?
  • The Doles, Mel Watts, Erskine Bowles and other experts, insiders we’ve interviewed
  • Leaders offer solutions to move forward
  • More information

    What changes might help?

    Scholars who study Washington have more faith in structural reforms in the country’s political and congressional systems than in calls for statesmanship. Such changes could bring incentives, they say, that alleviate gridlock by causing members of Congress to be less ideological and less partisan.

    Some of their suggestions:

    •  Change Senate rules so that the minority wanting to filibuster – or block a bill or nomination from being voted on – would have to produce 41 senators to prevail.

    Now, it’s up to the majority to produce 60 senators to end debate and move to a vote. A few years ago, that meant dragging 90-year-old Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., from his hospital bed to cast the 60th vote.

    “If you want to filibuster, you should have to provide the 41 votes to get it going,” says Norm Ornstein, a leading authority on Congress at the American Enterprise Institute.

    • Try to take the politics out of redistricting by letting nonpartisan commissions draw the boundaries of congressional districts, with an eye to more closely reflecting natural boundaries such as city and county lines. The creation of such districts would lead to more competitive general elections – and maybe less polarization in Congress – by having candidates woo independents as well as moderate voters from a different party.

    California has moved to this setup. But in most states, including North Carolina, the lines are drawn after every Census by state legislatures, which are controlled by one of the two parties. Both parties have a long history of using demographic data and voting patterns to “gerrymander” districts so that they become safe seats for their party’s candidates.

    With a win in the primary tantamount to election in these districts, “the (real) election takes place in the spring,” says former White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles. “It doesn’t take place in the fall.”

    • Change the Constitution to have members of the House elected to four-year terms instead of terms half that long. That would give lawmakers more time to govern. And without the traditional midterm elections – historically, a time when the president’s party loses legislative seats – the White House could have more time to enact its program.

    “There’s no reason to think that an 18th-century system is suited to deal with a 21st-century situation,” says David Schanzer, a professor of public policy at Duke University and co-author of a blog called “Gridlock.”

    • Pass a constitutional amendment outlawing direct contributions from corporations and labor unions.

    Some have proposed this move to effectively overrule the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to allow unlimited spending by these groups on First Amendment grounds. “Money – that’s the root problem,” says Charlotte’s Mark Erwin, who served as an ambassador during the Clinton administration.

    • Alter the congressional work schedule so that members of Congress will spend more time in Washington – and, perchance, spend social time with some from the other party.

    Now House members and senators work Monday through Thursday, then spend their weekends in the district. In the past, members would work for three weeks, stick around on the weekends, then take a full week at home.

    “Sure, you would disagree on the Senate floor. … (But) behind the scenes, the friendships were strong,” says former U.S. Sen. and Cabinet leader Elizabeth Dole, whose husband, Republican Sen. Bob Dole, developed a friendship and working relationship with Democratic Sen. George McGovern.

    Members from different parties getting to know one another is one of the goals of Washington’s Faith & Politics Institute. It brings Democrats and Republicans together for trips to places with polarized pasts – South Africa, for example, as well as Selma, Birmingham and other sites associated with the history of the civil rights movement.

    The Rev. Doug Tanner, who arranges many of the trips, says they’ve been bonding experiences for some senators and House members who were strangers before. Together they are exposed “to times when people got broken and bruised but were transformed,” Tanner says. And they discover, he says, that “with the right leadership, bridges are not only built, but real healing occurs.”


  • Observer/PNC forum

    Our moderator for the evening is WCNC-TV’s Sonja Gantt. Register at charlotteobserver.com/politics.

    What: “Solving It Together” public forum

    When: 7-9 p.m. Friday

    Where: UNCC Center City Building, 320 E. Ninth St., Charlotte.

    Cost: Free, but registration required. Register at charlotteobserver.com/politics.

    Parking: 701 N. Brevard St. (across from First Ward Elementary)

    Seating: First available. Doors open at 6 p.m.

    For more information: Jen Rothacker, jrothacker@charlotteobserver.com, 704-358-5081.


  • More information

    How can a Congress with such wide political differences move forward together for the good of the nation?

    That’s the question we will tackle at the inaugural “Solving It Together” forum, presented by the Charlotte Observer and PNC Bank. Our evening’s host will be UNC Charlotte.

    We invite the public to join in this special discussion from 7 to 9 p.m. Friday at UNCC’s Center City Building. Admission is free. A brief reception will follow. Free, secure parking is available at UNCC’s Brevard Street parking lot.

    Our goal for the evening is an open, constructive conversation about how elected leaders with political differences can find common ground.

    We will hear from former members of Congress and others who have built bridges and coalitions in Washington, including Jim Martin, a former North Carolina governor and congressman, former U.S. Rep. John Spratt and Kimrey Rhinehardt, a UNC vice president and former top aide to U.S. Sen. Richard Burr.

    Then, we’ll turn the stage over to current members of Congress, including Patrick McHenry, Mick Mulvaney and Mel Watt.


  • More information

    “It’s going to take some statesmanship. … We’ve got to do something.”

    Republican Bob Dole, former Senate majority leader

    “It’s the worst I’ve seen it since I’ve been here.”

    Democrat Mel Watt, N.C. congressman since 1992



Gridlock in Washington could cost you your job. Or torpedo your 401(k). Or endanger your Medicare benefits. That’s how important it is for President Barack Obama and congressional leaders to break through the legislative logjam and work together to solve the country’s monumental money problems.

These Democrats and Republicans only have until Jan. 1, for example, to avoid a “fiscal cliff’ that could raise taxes for all, slash funding for most federal programs and throw the economy into another recession.

The Observer asked political experts how they would fix a broken Washington. They proposed some reforms to the system. But mostly what we heard was a call for a new burst of leadership, one that understands – as the best past leaders did – that doing “the people’s business” requires compromise, bipartisanship and roll-up-your-sleeves bargaining.

“Compromise is at the heart of any democracy that’s working,” said the Rev. Doug Tanner of the Faith & Politics Institute in Washington.

Eric Heberlig, a political scientist at UNC Charlotte, offered this: “You go down in history for solving the big problems.”

Are House, Senate more dysfunctional than ever as key issues loom?

Stories by Tim Funk

Norm Ornstein – Capitol Hill scholar, “Roll Call” columnist and author of several books on Congress – says the current Washington scene is “the most dysfunctional in our lifetime.”

“Maybe not quite as bad as during the Civil War, the War of 1812 or the 1890s,” he says. “But these are not great periods to compare yourself to.”

His view is echoed by Sarah Binder, a George Washington University political scientist who studied the history of congressional gridlock for her book, “Stalemate.”

“All indications are that (this) is one of the more stalemated Congresses post-World War II,” she says. “They left on the table quite a number of the big issues of the day.”

She ticks off the list: debt, now estimated at over $16 trillion; Medicare, set to go broke by 2024 if no action is taken; immigration reform, which could resolve the legal status of 11 million undocumented residents; and a farm bill, desperately needed at a time of record droughts.

Some bills and judicial nominations were casualties of what’s become a weekly filibuster in the Senate. “It’s fair to say that the level and intensity of obstruction has increased,” Binder says.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., recently told “60 Minutes” that he’s had to try to override 248 GOP filibusters during his tenure. His 1950s predecessor, Lyndon Johnson, only had to deal with one, Reid said.

Much recent legislation, Binder says, languished because one side or the other just wouldn’t compromise: “This is a Congress that had a very hard time coming to the table and taking half a loaf.”

Just last year, Standard & Poor’s cited “less stable, less effective” governance and the “political brinksmanship” over whether to raise the debt limit as the reason for its first-ever downgrade of the United States’ credit rating. Another low last year: Congress’ public approval rating plunged to 9 percent – its lowest since polling began in1976.

Some current members of Congress dispute the notion that Washington is broken.

“It’s similar to the way it’s been for 200 years,” argues U.S. Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C. “People just know more about the ins and outs of Washington because of social media and the 24-hour news cycle. Somebody will have tweeted what’s happened at a closed-door meeting before it’s even over.”

But count U.S. Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., among those wearied by the legislative paralysis. “There are days when I enjoy what I’m doing,” he says. “But there are other days when I think, ‘What in the world am I doing here? We’ve been up here all week and haven’t done a thing.’ ”

What others said:

• “It’s mainly tribalism (in Congress). The chief job for members of Congress is to be unified. And they’re given the message of the week. They’re not encouraged to think for themselves. And they have to cater to a donor base that is pretty partisan.” – New York Times columnist David Brooks

• “There’s always been partisanship. … But I do think we have more today than in the 1990s, when I was active in Washington...” – Former White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles

• “(According to the Constitution,) being in Congress was not to be a love feast. It was to be a hard-fought contest, during which the best ideas emerge. But it can be taken to extremes.” – Former U.S. Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C.

• “Do you know of any members (of Congress) who got 9 percent (of the vote in November)? It’s easy to hate Congress and like your congressman.” – U.S. Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., referring to the record-low congressional approval rating last year

How did American politics get so partisan, polarized?

Some social scientists have a one-word answer for how Congress got to be so averse to compromise: sorting.

It happens when people choose to cluster with others who are like them, who believe the same things they do.

Sorting has changed America’s two major political parties from big-tent coalitions that won elections by accommodating many points of view to ideological clubs that expect members to be in lockstep on issues. Compromise with the other party? That’s considered “sleeping with the enemy,” in the words of Norm Ornstein, a leading authority on Congress.

Conservative Democrats, mostly in the South, and liberal Republicans, mostly in the Northeast, used to serve as bridges between the parties and were part of the broad center that once characterized American politics. You’d need a bloodhound to find more than a handful of either these days – especially in the halls of Congress.

What’s left is a conservative party, a liberal party and – says Eric Heberlig, a professor of political science at UNC Charlotte – “no middle anymore to create any type of compromise.”

This year’s election brought the defeat of U.S. Rep. Larry Kissell, a moderate “Blue Dog Democrat” from North Carolina, and U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, a moderate Republican in Massachusetts. Kissell will be replaced by a very conservative Republican, Brown by a very liberal Democrat.

This march toward like-mindedness also affects people’s decisions about where to live and what to watch on TV – two other forms of sorting that have also made Congress more polarized.

“People who are more progressive, more in favor of government, socially liberal, secular, are moving to the cities,” says David Schanzer, a Duke University public policy professor. “In the exurbs (outer edges of suburbs), that leaves more white, more conservative, more religious people.”

The connection to Congress? These areas become parts of House districts that lean so far to one party or the other that they amount to “homogenous echo chambers,” in the words of Ornstein, co-author of a new book on Congress called “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks.”

Finally, there’s the rise of a political media, which stokes partisan passions on a daily basis. For Republicans, there’s radio talker Rush Limbaugh and Fox News with Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity; for Democrats, it’s MSNBC with Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell.

A study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism found that Fox and MSNBC got more extreme in the final days of the 2012 presidential campaign, with spikes in attacks on Romney (by MSNBC) and Obama (by Fox).

Instead of counseling civility and compromise in the House and Senate, Ornstein says, these ratings-driven hosts have demonstrated that “in this culture, screaming is OK and there’s no punishment for lies.”

Also keeping the parties at the extremes: money. It’s always played a major role in determining who gets to Congress – and how they vote. But, in recent years, more campaign cash has come from groups with partisan and ideological goals.

“Money comes from the activist wings of the parties,” says Sarah Binder, a George Washington University professor with an expertise in Congress.

Rather than contributing to a congressional candidate’s campaign, some outside groups with fat wallets will buy their own TV ads attacking that candidate’s opponent. With the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case, there are few limits any more on how much they can spend.

And if a member of Congress doesn’t toe the ideological line, groups that give money can also take it away and redirect it to a primary election challenger.

“If there’s a Democrat (in Congress) who is willing to talk about compromise involving appropriate cuts in the entitlement programs so that they are sustainably solvent, the AARP or the AFL will run somebody in the primary and fund them pretty heavily to beat him or her,” says Erskine Bowles, former White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. “And in one of these all-Republican districts, if there’s a Republican who wants to express support for reforming the tax code and raising revenue, then Grover Norquist (head of Americans for Tax Reform) … will go out and raise money to run somebody against him or her.”

This looming threat of being “primaryed,” as it’s now called, has led to more members of Congress clinging to the extreme left or extreme right, Bowles says, “and so there’s fewer people in what I would call the sensible center. That makes it harder to get something done today than it used to be.”

What others said

• “Now, when you go interview a Democratic House member, all they say is ‘Well, I saw that Rachel said this, Rachel said that.’ And if you go interview a Republican, it’s ‘Well, O’Reilly said this or Rush said that.’ But (these hosts’) interest isn’t in making deals (on Capitol Hill). Their interest is to have a sort of economic culture war.” – New York Times columnist David Brooks

• “They just don’t tolerate any moderates in their party anymore.” – U.S. Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., speaking of Republicans

• “Where is their middle now? The Blue Dogs (moderate Democrats in Congress) are down.” – U.S. Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., speaking of Democrats

What can you do to make a difference?

Don’t be part of the problem by expecting your representative to deliver all gain and no pain.

“People want to have their cake and eat it, too – they want to have low taxes and high spending. You can’t have both,” says New York Times columnist David Brooks. “A lot of it is a problem with the followers.”

Practice what you preach to politicians.

“Don’t just blame Washington,” says the Rev. Doug Tanner, senior adviser to the Faith & Politics Institute in Washington. “(You) need to be more fully engaged in finding common ground and communicating to (your) leaders to do the same.”

Understand that deal-making in Washington can get messy.

“The public sees the bargaining, the game of chicken,” says Eric Heberlig, a political science professor at UNC Charlotte. “Even if (lawmakers) reach agreement at the end, the public is so turned off by the process that they kind of dismiss the results.”

Own your power to change Washington.

“We’re so passive,” says Mark Erwin, a former ambassador in the Clinton administration. “ ‘Oh. It’s terrible,’ we say, then flip the channel and go to a football game.”

Instead, says former U.S. Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., “Let (politicians) know that if they don’t vote sensibly. … Their jobs are in jeopardy.”

And dig into the issues – knowledge is power, too. Adds Spratt: “We’ve got to have an electorate that understands what needs to be done.”

If you want members of Congress to reach across party lines, reward them when they do – and punish them when they don’t.

“We need to elect candidates who are willing to compromise, who are willing to listen, who are not just advocating ideological solutions to problems,” says UNCC’s Eric Heberlig. “Look for (candidates) who are problem solvers first and ideologues second. Right now, it’s the opposite: We’re electing ideologues who are good at articulating our grievances but less good about actually doing anything or compromising something to have decent solutions to those grievances.”

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

The Charlotte Observer welcomes your comments on news of the day. The more voices engaged in conversation, the better for us all, but do keep it civil. Please refrain from profanity, obscenity, spam, name-calling or attacking others for their views.

Have a news tip? You can send it to a local news editor; email local@charlotteobserver.com to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Charlotte Observer.

  Read more



Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

The Charlotte Observer welcomes your comments on news of the day. The more voices engaged in conversation, the better for us all, but do keep it civil. Please refrain from profanity, obscenity, spam, name-calling or attacking others for their views.

Have a news tip? You can send it to a local news editor; email local@charlotteobserver.com to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Charlotte Observer.

  Read more


Quick Job Search
Salary Databases
CharlotteObserver.com