Most of the political issues on which I have worked are national or international in scope – genocide in Darfur, the death penalty and so forth. But most political problems involve the mundane politics of car pools, family vacations and office intrigue.

I have recently been reminded of this while trying to increase turnout for a Saturday morning soccer game. I’ve been part of the same game for nearly a decade. In the beginning there was a regular core of folks who could be counted on to show up roughly on time as long as the weather was half way decent. We all chipped in and bought miniature portable goals that someone took home every weekend, and after games folks went out for lunch. Every now and then a player would move away or a new one would be added, but by and large the regular regulars didn’t change.

In the past few years the regulars have dwindled and new folks have not been added fast enough to replace them. Some have gotten married and had kids, others were foreign nationals whose work in the US ended, and some decided that they were too old for this nonsense.

As fewer players regularly come to games, fewer players regularly come to games. Instead of betting enough others will show to make a good game, they bet enough others won’t show, making it less likely they show themselves.

Which leads to a specific, little-p political problem: how to increase turnout. As with all political problems the solution is to identify what the goal is (a reliable turnout of at least 8 – 10 people). The next step is to determine what these people find persuasive, which is the tricky bit – why would someone drive 20 – 40 minutes in each direction for what can only be described as a kick-about? Soccer isn’t enough of a motivation (there is a lot of soccer in DC), so what is? Is it the social aspect? If so, how do we increase that? Is it a comfortable level of competition? If so, how do we find and keep that? Is there another “value added” we can provide? Is it just a matter of priming the pump, providing a stimulus for a few weeks that jump-starts a virtuous cycle of participation? If so, what is that?

Once the motivation is determined, how is it best delivered? On a Friday someone (typically me) sends out a “soccer is on” email, and folks respond if they can make it. Does a clever line in the email help? Would calls to some help encourage them to come?

Another player who is an economist has agreed to help me tackle this problem by bringing the tools we use in our day jobs to this Saturday morning pursuit (he doesn’t know this yet). As Aristotle would remind us, the issue of turnout at a casual soccer game is no less political than persuading Congress to pass a bill or voters to support a candidate.

Your ideas are welcome – as is your participation, we play at 10:30a on Saturday mornings on the fields behind Whittier Woods School, 7400 Whittier Blvd in Bethesda.

Advocacy is about the person being persuaded, not the person doing the persuading. If you ask me for something I assume it’s good for you – that’s why you’re asking – explain why it’s good for me.

This lesson has recently been driven home by students at George Washington University trying to persuade me to sign them into a course I teach in on language and politics in the School of Media and Public Affairs. One student spent last semester abroad and there was a power outage when she tried to register, another got a great internship that required dropping a class and needs a last elective so she can graduate on time, and so forth. All good reasons, from the perspective of the students. But less than compelling from my perspective. All the students asking to be signed in are seniors, meaning they had three years (and still have the coming spring semester) to fulfill their requirements. Most say basically they want to take my class because it fits their schedule rather than because of any particular interest in the subject.

I like my students and enjoy the conversations we have. But the classroom is small, there are fire code restrictions on the numbers of people allowed in the room, and each additional student is two more exams and four more papers to grade. All are reasons not to sign in. I get paid a flat rate regardless of the number of students, so there is no monetary incentive to add students (indeed, time I spend on students is time I cannot spend on clients, so there are financial costs to extra students). There are no advantages for me to sign in a student, and there are financial and personal costs to doing so.

A smart prospective student will do what smart advocates do:
Determine the goal – get into the class, which the students have done;

Identify power – in this case me, which all have done;

Determine what power finds persuasive – this is the problem, the students use what they find persuasive with no consideration of what I would find compelling;

Learn from whom the message is most persuasive – the students assume they are their own best advocates, which may or may not be true; and

Do that – without the message and messenger steps, this step cannot successfully be taken.

Smart students will talk about what I will get out of them, not what they will get out of me. For example a student who studied abroad could talk about the international perspective she would bring to class discussions, or someone with a great internship could talk about bringing what they learn to class, and they will highlight a passion to learn about the topic rather than being available on Wednesday nights. Very smart students will talk to others who have taken courses from me to learn what I find persuasive and from whom (for example my sister in law is a big deal in the department). And the sharpest students will focus on what works for me, not them.

According to the Wall Street Journal food retailers will soon begin posting calorie counts. (This is via Ezra Klein’s Wonkbook).

According to the article:
“Health advocates say the change could be a powerful tool in fighting the obesity epidemic, a top initiative in Washington since first lady Michelle Obama made childhood obesity her signature cause in February.

"Everybody's going to be a little bit better informed, and that's a good thing," said Lou Sheetz, executive vice president at Sheetz Inc., an Altoona, Pa., convenience store chain with 380 outlets in six states.”

The notion is nice, but misguided. As I have written elsewhere, facts are not incentives. Raw bits of data don’t mean a lot. To have power, facts need context that gives them meaning. For example, researchers across a number of fields point out that to act I need to know what my peers are doing with the data; if you want me to lose weight put me around others who are losing weight and I’ll try to keep down with the Joneses.

At my desk I’m surrounded by bits of data. According to my water bill, which is on top of my “to be filed” pile, my “current read” is 788, my “Usage (CCF)” is 8 and my “Usage (gallons)” is 5,984. I have no idea what the first two phrases mean and I have no idea if 6,000 gallons is a lot or a little. Calorie counts will become CCFs – numbers without context or meaning. I try to eat relatively healthily and I try to exercise, but haven’t the slightest idea how many calories I consume in a day and how that number compares to other men in their mid-40s who are six feet tall.

But, I hear my liberal foodie friends cry, there is no disadvantage to more information. Again, I would disagree. First, more data become more bits of white noise that we simply stop seeing thus arguably making it more difficult to make informed choices with meaningful data. Second, it is one more thing that small businesses must do – there is a cost to those who serve us the cheddar fries and chocolate covered bacon (both of which I love). That cost comes out of very slender profit margins, which means other cuts elsewhere in the company or it means increased prices for us. Just because it might not hurt to have a data point is not a reason to mandate action.

Clearly Americans need to make better choices about their health, which includes food. But rather than toss out data (11!) and hope for the best, smart advocates will learn why people make the choices they do, how those choices are affected, and work with those lessons.

There are a number of ways to analyze Glenn Beck’s recent rally on the National Mall. Each explanation offers different insights into different elements, and taken together all of the analysis can provide a complete picture of the ‘what’ and ‘so what’ of the event.

One way to view the event is to rely on Ernest Bormann’s work, The Force of Fantasy: Restoring the American Dream(Southern Illinois University Press, 1985. It is almost as if Beck read Bormann one night and came to work the next day saying “I have a great idea…”

Bormann writes:
“The rhetorical fantasy type of purification through rebirth and restoration was central to the Puritan persuasion of the founders of New England, was the key to the rise of the evangelical persuasion of the New Lights of the Great Awakening, was the basis for the restoration movement of the Disciples of Christ, and was the foundation of the vision of the evangelical agents of abolition. The fact that the restoration fantasy type was the central rhetorical form of Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address in 1980 provides further evidence for its longevity and staying power.”

Bormann’s analysis of Lincoln’s rhetoric is especially explanatory (an analysis for Beck’s rhetoric made awkwardly more appropriate by the location of the speech):

“Lincoln’s archetypical fantasy was that of restoration [emphasis in original]. Lincoln’s drama of restoration portrayed a nation fallen on evil times, a nation which needed to restore itself, to return to the purity of the time of its founders, to renew the basic value and ideals of the Declaration of Independence, and to restore the Union to the original foundations of the constitution to show that the great experiment in self-government could work and that ‘the last best hope of mankind’ would be lost forever if it failed.”

Even Beck’s persona is one that Bormann suggests is part of the American narrative: the former sinner turned savior who leads a revival.

Bormann argues that the world is “chaotic and confusing”, and that shared rhetorical fantasies are “coherent accounts of experience in the past or envisioned in the future that simplify and form the social reality of participants.” By offering coherent explanations speakers give their audiences a ground on which to stand. By relying on the shared restoration fantasy, one that has appeared again and again in American history, a speaker is able to locate a person in a story with which they are already familiar.

Our economy remains in trouble, we’re fighting two wars, technology is changing a light speed, and ‘the other’ is here (gay marriage, an African American president, a higher profile for Muslims in America, etc. – things that make some people very uncomfortable, in part because the phenomena fall outside their explanation of the world, outside of their rhetorical fantasy). Beck relies on an American trope to explain the change and to explain the role of the audience in that change. Seen in this light, Beck’s rally is fundamentally American in both form and substance.

Where an argument takes place can have an important impact on the outcome of the argument. Attorneys “venue shop” hoping to try cases in front of favorable judges, kids quickly learn which parent is the soft touch and smart advocates strategically select legislative committees for their bills.

This morning’s Washington Post Wonkbook points to the most recent example of advocates using jurisdictions as a tool. They point to a Wall Street Journal piece on advocates encouraging the Senate to debate extension of the Bush tax cuts through the Finance Committee rather than bringing the debate straight to the floor.

Advocates will no doubt make arguments about the regular order of the Senate and the importance of following the rules, especially when public cynicism with Congress is running so high. Good reasons to be sure – but as the Journal notes, a more likely reason is that the Senate Finance Committee is more amendable to the tax cut extension than the full Senate is.

(As a side note – if you don’t read Ezra Klein’s Wonkbook you really ought to – smart, well written, fun asides, no DC gossip.)

In this case the venue can help determine the outcome without having any persuasive effect; that the debate happens in Committee doesn’t make it more or less persuasive, it simply changes those in charge of the outcome (another critical point about power, which is another discussion for another time).

There are cases in which the location helps define the issue and thus is itself part of the persuasion. For example, if network neutrality is debated in the Judiciary Committee it is “about” fairness for consumers but if it’s debated in the Commerce Committee it’s about economics. Similarly, if vertical consolidation of media is debated in Judiciary it’s about anti-trust, if it’s debated in Commerce it’s about the market and if it’s debated in the Small Business Committee it’s about entrepreneurs and job creation. Each location highlights a different dimension of the debate, privileges different arguments, gives different witnesses and advocates credibility, and has different standards for what makes a good argument. The location is itself persuasive and helps determine the persuasive aspects of the rest of the debate.

Smart advocates consider the where of an argument when they construct their strategies, factoring in the specific decision makers in a specific location as well as the broader rhetorical effects of their chosen venue.

“…participants who said they did lots of environmentally responsible things on the energy front actually had less accurate perceptions of all this—suggesting that while people may think they’re doing the planet good, they are not.”

- ”Green and Clueless”, Sharon Begley, Newsweek, 8/17/10

This essay is another reminder that facts are not incentives.

We get facts wrong all the time. The piece points out that people don’t know how much energy things use, either in absolute terms or in relationship to each other. This ignorance isn’t limited to the relative environmental impact of clothes lines versus cell phones – most of us don’t know state capitals, how the federal budget process works or who signed TARP into law.

Even if we get the facts right, that does not mean that we will act on them. Flossing will keep my teeth healthier and diminish the amount of shame I feel at the dentist, yet I haven’t flossed in a week. A number of Republican candidates, and presumably their potential voters, simply don’t believe in global warming in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary.

And even if we get the facts right that doesn’t mean we will act in ways that those pointing out the facts would like us to. One study of the effects of messages about global warming found that scare tactics made people want to drive SUVs more and economy cars less; clearly not the conclusion advocates were hoping people would reach (the logic is that if we are about to be under siege from storms and rising waters we want to be in cars that can handle it – what you rather be driving through armageddon, a Mini Cooper or a Hummer?)

Some of us do get the facts right and do intend to act in ways that we think make sense from the facts – but still get it wrong. My dad is very environmentally conscious and talks a good global warming talk. One of his solutions is to “hyper mile”, squeezing every possible mile out of a gallon of gas. But to the best of my knowledge he has never cleaned the lint-filter in his dryer.

A better solution than dumping facts on the field and hoping they get picked up in the right ways is to provide clear incentives to act. One example of relying on incentives rather than data is a company called OPower which uses competition and social norms to drive down individual energy consumption. Homeowners can track how much power they are using compared to their neighbors in the context of who is saving more – sort of keeping down with the Joneses. So far their approach works, with individuals cutting energy consumption by 2.5%. Cutting your power consumption by that amount may not seem like much, but added up across all of the homes in a city or region it quickly becomes real and important.

If you want someone to behave differently find a way to reward that person for the behavior.

Advocacy is not for the impatient. When Congress moves quickly, it moves slowly. And when it moves slowly – which is most of the time – it can appear to be standing still. Ours is a political system designed to prevent rapid and radical change, and in that regard it succeeds.

One rule of thumb I use with clients (which, like most rules of thumb, is more explanatory than accurate) is the Three-Congress Rule. In the first session of Congress you maybe have a hearing or two on your bill, get some cosponsors, get a little media, generate some letters to legislators, spend time talking to staff. This takes two years. In the second session you go back to your cosponsors (remember that when a Congress adjourns all the unpassed bills vanish and you have start over again), have a few more hearings, get some more coverage, generate more grassroots and grasstops support, maybe you manage to get the bill out of Committee or even the House or the Senate. Then time runs out and another two years is over. In the third session you again go back to your cosponsors, and folks say “didn’t we pass this last year?” and you get your bill. When the bill eventually does pass it probably looks very different than it did at the start, and may be tacked onto a larger piece of legislation that may or may not have anything to do with your idea. This is if all goes well. And things rarely go well.

The administrative process isn’t much better. The rules mandate a slowness – there is a notice of inquiry, followed by a notice of proposed rulemaking, followed by replies, followed by responses. And this is just the official timing – the clock can stop and start, issues can move for months or years before getting to an NOI.

The most successful advocacy efforts recognize this reality and work within it. They develop and maintain relationships with policymakers over time, becoming part of the policymakers’ informal team on whatever the issue at hand happens to be. Given the turnover rate on the Hill and in the administration, outside advocates often outlast the policymakers themselves, further increasing their power and chances of success.

Less successful efforts jump in at the end, filing comments with an agency or generating a grassroots push around a bill in its final stages. This can sometimes work, but is often too late. By the time a bill hits committee or the floor the hard work of narrowing options has been done, decisions about which problem to solve and the general approach to solving it have been made.

Winning a policy debate is like winning any other debate, it is far easier to do at the beginning than at the end. If you want to impact policy at the end, get in early and stay in throughout.

Congratulations to Professor James Thurber on being awarded the 2010 Walter Beach Pi Sigma Alpha Award from the National Capitol Area Political Science Association. In his acceptance address Prof. Thurber answered the question, Has President Obama Changed the Way Washington Works? (Spoiler alert: No).

As a once, and possibly future, registered lobbyist I agree with Prof. Thurber when he says:

"Are lobbyists the major problem with the way Washington works as President Obama argues? I think not. The problems of hostility and paralysis we see in our national government is not caused by lobbyists. Washington has degenerated to the point where civic debate has become uncivil invective; analysis has been displaced by ideology. Many vital public issues are not solved, but rather stored for future partisan use. I think the disappearance of moderates or the “vital center” is a threat to our democracy. They are an endangered species and moderate Republicans must be put in the “witness protection program.

The inability of our political system - in the absence of a vigorous, bipartisan center - to address effectively such known and crucial issues as additional job creation programs, tax reform, the rising accumulation of public debt, a looming Medicare and Social Security shortfall, immigration reform, an education system that leaves still leaves too many of our children behind world standards, and serious energy and environmental problems is a scandal. The system that cannot confront these challenges will surely lack the reserves of comity and trust to face any future crises."

In his address Professor Thurber outlines several problems and solutions, including: reforming ethical behavior; reforming legislative procedure; reforming the earmark process; reforming redistricting (a favorite of mine - ed); reforming how money is raised and spent; and reforming registration of lobbyists.

Professor Thurber is a long-time scholar of Congress and committed advocate for a robust democracy. His honor is well deserved, and his advice is worth serious consideration.

Pi Sigma Alpha Award Address

Has President Obama Changed the Way Washington Works?

By
James A. Thurber
Distinguished University Professor and Director, Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University
July 26, 2010

I. I want to thank Chris Deering, President of the National Capitol Area
Political Science Association and the council members for selecting me to receive the 2010 Walter Beach Pi Sigma Alpha award.

I am honored to join the previous recipients of this award and especially pleased because Walter Beach was a close friend and someone I owe much for encouraging me to apply for the APSA congressional fellowship. Walter and the fellowship changed my career fundamentally. This is an award that celebrates the combination of applied and academic work in political science, something that Walter advocated and something we do at American University.

I have many people to thank for me receiving this award, but first and foremost I thank my wife Claudia and my family.

My colleagues in the American University community have always been supportive of my work, starting with Lee Fristschler (who hired me), President Neil Kerwin and School of Public Affairs Dean Bill LeoGrande who have always been helpful and encouraging. There are many other colleagues who helped me. I want to thank Candice Nelson,Walter Oleszek, Todd Eisenstadt, Pat Griffin, and Jon Wilkenfeld, a friend form graduate school, who are here today. Bernie and Marlene Ross could not come today but I want to give a special thanks to them for 36 years of support and friendship. They all believed in our efforts to do combine basic political science research to applied politics.

I want to thank students like Tom Williams (a distinguished award winning adjunct professor at A.U.), Sam Garret (who is at CRS), David Dulio (at Oakland University), and Jeff Gill (at Washington University at St. Louis) for their continued support and enlightenment.

Finally there were many people in the world of politics that I should thank, but especially Senators Hubert Humphrey and Adlai Stevenson and Representatives David Obey and Lee Hamilton who I worked for on often seemingly hopeless congressional reform causes.

II. What are the problems with the way Washington works? Are lobbyists the problem with Washington?

Candidate Barack Obama in 2008 made this promise to the public:

“I intend to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over, that they had not funded my campaigns, and from my first day as president, I will launch the most sweeping ethics reform in U.S. history. We will make government more open, more accountable and more responsive to the problems of the American people.”

Obama also addressed what he thought were the destructive power of lobbyists in a town hall meeting in Bristol, Virginia:

“We are going to change how Washington works. They will not run our party. They will not run our White House. They will not drown out the views of the American people.”

He continued his tough attack on lobbyists and special interest money on August 8, 2008:

“I suffer from the same original sin of all politicians, which is we’ve got to raise money. But my argument has been and will continue to be that the disproportionate influence of lobbyists and special interest is a problem in Washington and in state capitals.”

III. The Lobbying Industry has grown but are lobbyists the problem in the way Washington works? Are they the reason for the dysfuntionality of Congress?

Widespread scandal and public opinion helped to fuel Senator Obama’s attack on the role of lobbyists in American politics. It started with his leadership (with the help of Senator McCain) to reform ethics and lobbying in Congress in 2006 which resulted in passing the most significant reform since 1995. He continued to use criticism of lobbyists and the role of money in Washington as a popular theme of his 2008 election campaign, He promised to change Washington. Since the election he has used these attacks as a way to build support for his policy agenda, especially in the battle over health care and financial regulation. Obama banned federal registered lobbyists from his campaign organization and has restricted them from serving in his administration. Lobbying scandals and President Obama’s belief that Washington is awash in “special interest” money which undermines the public interest have been the primary reasons for his reform agenda. He has also strategically used criticisms of lobbyists as a way to build support for his policy initiatives.

President Obama also issued several historic executive orders restricting lobbyists from service in government and limiting their access to policy making in the executive branch.
During his first year and half in office, President Obama has attacked lobbyists dozens of times for hindering or even stopping his policy agenda and what he says is in the public interest. However, he publically praises his “stakeholders” (often Federal registered lobbyists) from organizations like the AARP, the pharmaceutical industry, and the American Medical Association in the health care battle who support his policies. What is the difference between lobbyists and stakeholders who are both public advocates for his policies? Language makes a difference. Voters do not like lobbyists. They think they are a corrupting influence on Washington. Advocates and lobbyists cite the same source of legitimacy; that is, a fundamental right of free speech, of assembly to petition government for grievances, all guaranteed under the first amendment. A federal registered lobbyist is defined in law and must give (with a threat of fines and jail time if they do not comply) quarterly detailed reports of lobbying activities, clients, and money spent. Stakeholders are not held to that standard; their activities and spending are not reported publically. Generally their advocacy role is non-transparent.
President Obama has used that public anger with Washington in his attempts to garner support for his policies on the Hill. In the 2008 cooperative campaign function study survey fifty-eight percent of the respondents felt Obama would be very likely or somewhat likely to change the way Washington works? After the economic crisis, government corruption was the second-most important issue mentioned by voters in national surveys in 2008 and the most important issue among the electorate in the midterm election of 2006.

President Obama has continued his passion to reform lobbying and the way Washington works since his election. He restricted participation by lobbyists on his transition team. He instituted a strong code ethics for all executive branch appointees, implemented a tough gift ban, passed more transparency rules for decision making, and on his first day in office he issued an executive order restricting the “revolving door” of lobbyists both in and out of government. He also banned direct lobbying for funds and tax breaks from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) (Public Law 110-343) and the 2009 Economic stimulus package bill. President Obama centralized his transition team dealing with lobbying and ethics reform and he centralized White House control over government ethics and lobbying by hiring lobbying reformer Norm Eisen to head this topic in the transition and later as Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government (the Ethics Czar). Eisen has lead drafting and the President issuing two historic Executive Orders and several presidential memos on lobbying and ethics, as listed in the following table. They are attempts to bring more transparency, public participation, and to reduce conflicts of interest in his administration.
President Obama’s Ethics and Lobbying Reforms, 2009-2010
• Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel, Executive Order 13490, January 21, 2009.
• Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. on Transparency and Open Government, January 21 2009.
• Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds, March 20, 2009.
• Reducing Improper Payments and Eliminating Waste in Federal Programs, Executive Order 13520, November 23, 2009.
• Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Freedom of Information Act, December 18, 2009.
• President Obama’s Weekly Address: President Obama Vows to Continue Standing Up to the Special Interests on Behalf of the American People, January 23, 2010.

Source: WhiteHouse.gov, Briefing Room, May 2010

President Obama has also called for:
• More bipartisanship

• Limitation on earmarks. Reinstitution of pay-as-you-go in appropriations.

• More freedom for the Democratic Party chairs and party leaders in Congress to develop and pass large legislative initiatives such as the economic stimulus bill, health care reform and financial institutional reform. President Obama helped to change Washington decision making because of the scope of the public problems facing American and the breath of the historic legislation that is intended to address these problems

Are lobbyists the major problem with the way Washington works as President Obama argues? I think not. The problems of hostility and paralysis we see in our national government is not caused by lobbyists. Washington has degenerated to the point where civic debate has become uncivil invective; analysis has been displaced by ideology. Many vital public issues are not solved, but rather stored for future partisan use. I think the disappearance of moderates or the “vital center” is a threat to our democracy. They are an endangered species and moderate Republicans must be put in the “witness protection program.”

The inability of our political system - in the absence of a vigorous, bipartisan center - to address effectively such known and crucial issues as additional job creation programs, tax reform, the rising accumulation of public debt, a looming Medicare and Social Security shortfall, immigration reform, an education system that leaves still leaves too many of our children behind world standards, and serious energy and environmental problems is a scandal. The system that cannot confront these challenges will surely lack the reserves of comity and trust to face any future crises.

President Obama and many Members of Congress talk publicly of these problems, and some promise reform. Partisan debate is essential but it has become so rancorous that it prevents the resolution of our most important public problems. There seems to be no prospect today that Congress is dealing with this crisis on its own. It is time for Congress, even in an election year, to show that they are attempting to solve the very real problems we face and not simply storing up points for the fall campaign and blaming lobbyists and our pluralist representational form of government for deadlock.

President Obama has argued that lobbyists are a major fault for Washington not working as it should. It is a popular view, but I think serious and immediate reform in many other areas is needed, not an attack on lobbying, lobbyists, and in effect, First Amendment rights.

Let me review some of these problems and list several needed reforms:

1. Reform Ethical Behavior: There continues to be serious problems with the way Congress polices itself with respect to ethical behavior.

• The Ethics Committee should do a better job of investigating and promptly resolving ethical issues.

• Congress should impose additional restrictions and reporting requirements on its members and staff similar to those it has placed on lobbyists.

• The Senate should follow the lead of the House and establish an independently managed Office of Public Integrity to promptly investigate misbehavior.

• Congress should insist on better enforcement of existing rules of the House and Senate and investigation and prompt action by the U.S. Department of Justice when misconduct is found.

2. Reform Legislative Procedural Maneuvers: Procedural changes have been made in Congress itself that have, in the view of many, undermined the normal legislative process. While current concerns focus on today's majority congressional leadership, the same tactics were practiced in the past by the minority party, and an apparent cycle of alleged past abuse and continuing retribution has infected the Congress. Thus, this process cannot be blamed solely on one political party. These alleged abuses include:

• The long-term decline, over decades and changes in influence between the two parties, in the ability or willingness of Congress to make thorough use of its oversight powers to keep the Executive Branch in check.

• The increasing use of House Rules to deny the minority a full debate or effective votes, and to alter legislation passed by the Committees of jurisdiction.

• The increasing use of filibusters, amendments, and holds to clog the legislative work in the Senate.

• The breakdown of the budget process.

• Heavy reliance on riders and earmarks to must-pass appropriation bills as a crutch to act on significant policy issues, often late at night, out of the public view.

• The growing tendency toward government by Continuing Resolution.

• The lack of true bipartisanship and the polarization of Congress.

Congress should take action to protect itself now and in the future from these problems.

3. Reform the Use of Earmarks: The recent ballooning of “earmarks” in the actions of Congress – appropriations, authorizations, and tax legislation – may be the most offensive legislative manipulation, and possibly the most egregious of all forms of misbehavior by Members of Congress. The Congressional Research Service identified some 3,000 earmarks worth $19.5 billion enacted in 1996. By 2005, the number of earmarks had grown to almost 13,000, valued at $64 billion. After the 2007 earmark reforms the numbers dropped, but they have climbed back to 12,099 in FY 2009 with a total of $30.7 billion. That is 1.8% of the total appropriation or 2.9% if mandatory appropriations are excluded.

There are instances in which Congress has legitimate reason narrowly to specify how money is spent. They do have the power of the purse. However, many recent earmarks appear to have been inserted into legislation without public debate, adequate notice or justification. A criminal conviction was built on an exchange of earmarks for personal cash and in-kind payments, and earmarks have been associated with, if not causally linked to, campaign contributions and the exercise of the power of incumbency. There needs to be additional earmark reform. I recommend the following:

• The ability of a single Member of Congress to direct funds to a lobbyist’s clients must be curbed. Require Members of Congress to certify that they have neither sought nor received campaign contributions from an individual registered to lobby them for an earmark in the current Congress.

• Congress should create a single, searchable online database for all earmark requests (for appropriations, taxes, and authorizations) and the amount approved by committee of jurisdiction.

• The sponsor of any earmark is now identified, but the department or agency, the state or district of the member who made the request, the name and address of the intended recipient, the type of organization (public, private nonprofit, or for profit entity), the project name, description, and estimated completion date should also be identified too.

• A small number of Members of the House or the Senate should be empowered to require a roll-call vote on any earmark.

4. Reform How Redistricting is Done: The House has been redistricted to safe seats (99.5% of the incumbents in 2004 won reelection, 94% in 2006 and 2008). The creation of these safe House districts has led to the election of increasingly "ideologically pure" representatives with little institutional loyalty, and an unprecedented degree of homogeneity within the two parties. This has made the party primary, with a traditionally low turnout dominated by activist voters, the election that counts. More moderate voters are easily shut out of the process; appeals to the “base” drown out serious debate on broad issues of national concern. This has increased the importance of ideology in legislating and lobbying activities – creating deadlock, a divided, partisan and mean-spirited House with few moderates in the middle, and a lack of comity and civility in the way decisions are made in Washington. Individually, but often through implicit cooperation, our political parties are establishing electoral districts that effectively eliminate the right to vote of those who live in districts in which their candidates can never be elected. In effect, the Representatives choose their voters, not the other way around. Questionable redistricting practices that have been undertaken recently in Texas, California and other states must stop. There should be a responsible limit on partisan redistricting protecting incumbents. We need more competitive districts in the House. One method to assure more competition is to use non partisan redistricting commissions, as is the case in the U.K. and Canada.

5. Reform How Money Is Raised and Spent: Campaign costs are so monumental that Members must spend most of their time raising money, leaving less time for legislating and working with their fellow legislators. It keeps getting worse each election year. With fewer Members in Washington, the infamous "Tuesday-through-Thursday Club" is all too real. There is too little time to address our looming monumental challenges, and also for the Members of Congress to know each other and to learn to work together.

• Too much money is being spent for elections.

• The total cost of campaigning should be limited.

• New steps are needed to restrict and regulate campaign contributions.

• Leadership PACs are another major question of whether campaign money is being raised and spent appropriately. Growing numbers of Members of Congress have formed "Leadership PACs" to accumulate more money than would otherwise be legally allowed to assist other campaigns and causes. It is alleged that the choice of a Member to chair a Committee may depend on his or her ability to raise significant funds in a Leadership PAC. This continues to be a serious problem.

6. Reform Lobbying Registration Lobbying in Washington has grown to a degree that many find alarming. The number of registered lobbyists has soared – from 16,342 in 2000 to 34,785 in 2005, but dropped to around 14,000 after the 2007 lobbying reforms. In 1998, registered lobbyists reported spending $1.427 billion; in 2004, lobbyists spent at least $2.128 billion on reported activities and in 2009 that grew to $3.4 billion, but there is probably three to four times more spent on “grassroots lobbying,” advertising, coalition building, and other unregulated advocacy efforts. Spending by registered lobbyists has grown 62% in the last five years. Again, astonishingly averages out to over $17 million in lobbying expenditures each day Congress was in session in 2008 or over $6 million per year for every Member of Congress. This does not include money spent for grassroots, coalition building, issue advertising on television ads, and on the print media, and advocacy on the Internet.

• We need new lobbyist registration rules to achieve greater transparency about lobbyists’ access to Members of Congress.

• There needs to be a lower threshold of what is considered lobbying since most advocacy in Washington today is not covered by the LDA and HLOGA.

• We need enforcement of existing law with regard to lobbying.

IV. Conclusion

If President Obama and others want to improve the way Washington works, we need to do the following:

• Reform redistricting for more competitive districts.
• Build more cross party cooperation and encourage political moderates in Congress.
• Improve deliberation in Congress and improve education of the American public through informative public debates and deliberation.
• Increase congressional comity and civility.
• Stop the Tuesday-Thursday Club in Congress.
• Return to the regular order in Congress (fewer restrictive rules, hold conferences, limit Senate holds, and reform the filibuster).

And finally yes, we need more transparency, accountability, and enforcement with respect to lobbying and advocates of all kinds.

“Statistics only capture one slice of the problem. But it is the renowned Harvard economist, Larry Katz, who offers the most compelling analogy. “Think of the American economy as a large apartment block,” says the softly spoken professor. “A century ago – even 30 years ago – it was the object of envy. But in the last generation its character has changed. The penthouses at the top keep getting larger and larger. The apartments in the middle are feeling more and more squeezed and the basement has flooded. To round it off, the elevator is no longer working. That broken elevator is what gets people down the most.”

Edward Luce in The Financial Times via Ezra Klein in the Washington Post

As I remember Immanual Wallerstein’s World System’s Theory (a memory that is almost certainly flawed), a primary reason there has been no global war between the world’s poorest and wealthiest nations is because those on the global periphery believe they can move through poverty into middle-class and eventually to wealth. As long as there is the belief that the earth’s poorest countries can become among the wealthiest, there will be relative global stability.

One could, and others surely have, applied this logic to domestic political stability as well. As long as the Horatio Alger story remains credible, there will be relative political stability in the U.S.; if those at the bottom of the economic ladder believe that with hard work and a little luck they can climb the ladder to – and through – the middle class then there will be relative political tranquility. Similarly, those at the top of the ladder need to sometimes fall. The middle class needs to be both attainable and fluid.

It’s not the big penthouses at the top of the building that are the problem but rather the broken elevator. (This also brings to mind J.G. Ballard’s novel, High Rise).

Seen in this light, advocates would be advised to promote policies and messages that speak to opportunity rather than outcomes. The point isn’t that everyone should have something, but rather everyone should have a realistic chance to have lots of things, and those with lots of things should be at risk of losing them. It’s about equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

As an immediate political matter, such an understanding could create the larger narrative structure that has so far been missing from this Democratic president and Congress. Health care reform levels the playing field by opening opportunities for entrepreneurs and ensuring that everyone who gets sick can see a doctor; financial services reform levels the economic playing field and promotes accountability; investment in industry creates good jobs at good wages so that working Americans can again work their way up the system; and so forth. The story is one of a working elevator rather than one of wrecking a nice apartment in which we all believe that we may one day live or a series of patches to crumbling walls.