Thread by @MattGlassman312

Congress has a retirement problem. And now you're going to have to deal with a goddamn tweetstorm from me about it. 1/

Here's the basic problem: the fun and interesting things are becoming a much smaller part of the job, while the tedious and soul-crushing aspects are increasingly occupying members' time. 2/

Back in 2018, @leedrutman concisely connected the grind to the high level of retirements that year. 2/

vox.com/polyarchy/2018…

The examples are endless, but can be quickly summed up. In the past, most members participated substantively in the policy process via the committee system. But the process is now tightly controlled by leadership, reducing opportunities for members to influence legislation. 3/

Hard work in a policy area is often unrewarded, reducing the incentive to dig into an issue, nevermind develop real expertise. 4/

Conversely, members face increased uncertainty about their own re-elections, as national partisan winds control more and more of their fate regardless of how well they represent their districts, and well-funded primary challengers threaten even general-election safe districts. 5/

Which means more time than ever is spent raising money and preparing for campaign season. 6/

Here's the big picture rub: there's an equilibrium to all this, and it's not a good one: the types of people who run for Congress will tend to be people who don't find the job miserable. 7/

That is, over time, people who retire because they wanted to engage in policy but ended up just dialing for dollars will be replaced by people who don't really care about making policy and don't mind dialing for dollars. 8/

Now, some people might just be fooled, thinking the job will be fun. But those people won't last long. The people who thrive in this environment will be people who don't mind the grind, and don't really wish it was any different. 9/

If all you ever wanted to be was a foot-soldier for a party who got some free lunches and a little bit of respect in DC, you probably won't be too miserable here. 10/

Now, whether that's good or bad hinges on a normative assessment of how Congress should operate. I'm of the mind that a transformative legislature that develops policy and plays a serious role within the separation of powers system is a good thing. 11/

But there are plenty of people who would just as soon hollow out out the legislature, move policy development to the executive branch and the parties, and be done with it. So your mileage may vary. 12/

But my point is more that there's no automatic trigger here that would lead anyone to fix this problem, because as the problem grows, the membership itself is transformed into a body that doesn't really mind the problem. 13/

You can see this in many of the younger members---they have no expectation that they'll be able to propose floor amendments in the House, or that committee drafts will be the bills that come out of the Rules Committee. Why would they? They've never lived in that legislature. 14/

People used to talk about this all the time in regard to the House minority, especially before 1995. It sucked being in the minority, because you didn't really get to do anything. As the famous saying goes, their job was to collect their paycheck and shut up. 15/

And every study of the matter showed the same results: the minority had more trouble recruiting high-quality candidates, because on balance, people who were smart, engaged, and energized about politics had little interest in coming to DC to sit in a permanent minority. 16/

It was a huge pathology for the GOP during their 40 years in the wilderness in the House. They had trouble recruiting good candidates, they had trouble keeping good people around, and that became a vicious cycle toward losing elections and staying in the minority. 17/

My fear is that the same is now happening for serving in Congress in general, and that the downward spiral will be difficult to counteract. /end