Thread by @pwcdanica

For the Sideshow Conspiracy Caucus of Congress -- central platform: "Bleh! Faux victimhood manufactured from disinformation! Bleh!" -- two observations:
1) They likely won't pass any bills, even if their party regains power.
2) They won't lose votes for their ineffectiveness.

Generally speaking, "ineffective" doesn't resonate with strong intensity for voters when you're driving up someone's negatives -- unless you tie it to something hyper-sensitive to their district, like if they couldn't prevent a major employer from closing despite intervention.

Instead, the Sideshow Conspiracy Caucus will argue, "I'm fighting for Super Important Values Statement someone told me a statistically significant number of you care about! Didn't you see me on TV?!" even if they'll actually do absolutely squat to achieve their stated objective.

That more or less defined the career of a certain former representative who truly embodied the Sideshow Caucus through four terms and passed exactly one post office renaming bill into law despite being in the majority for half of her career. (Source: govtrack.us.)

She deployed the "I'm an ineffective fighter... for you!" strategy based on being willing to "fight" for whatever she thought would advance her career, which amounted to an effort to drive the "conversation."
Coincidentally, that involved passing jack and still running for POTUS.

What we're seeing play out now is, well, idiotic, but it's nothing new to politics. It certainly won't keep these members from filing legislation they know is destined to die because they're more concerned with starting a "conversation" than having something to show for it.

Now, here's the thing: passing legislation isn't the only mark of a good legislator. The 17 bills I passed from 2019-2020 only came after the former majority killed all my bills in 2018. Sometimes you're targeted for no reason other than they want to flip your seat.

People can be pretty forgiving when you're in the minority. You're doing your best, you're giving 'em hell, etc., and that's just how it goes.

But that's tempered with an expectation that if they're ever actually in charge, in theory they'd need to have something to show for it.

This is where it's important to realize if you're inherently setting yourself up to fail because you center your political existence in a sea of dystopic BS or you find ways to connect back home through great constituent service, lots of town halls, help navigating agencies, etc.

My concern isn't so much about Sideshow Conspiracy Caucus members winning seats -- they always have and always will -- as much as there are enough voters who don't see that as a disqualifier, which makes a primary challenger who'd vote the same but without the "Bleh! BS!" doomed.

And here's the thing -- there's nothing wrong with being an outsider who runs to shake things up, actually has strong convictions and fortitude, votes their conscience/district, and speaks up and speaks out. Caucuses genuinely need people who take risks and push strong policies.

But there's a difference between being willing to learn the ropes, accumulate clout, demonstrate your political and policy acumen and always fight the good fight vs. the day-to-day temper tantrums of the Sideshow Conspiracy Caucus putting the Big Lie Theory on display.

When they're being rewarded for blatant disinformation, that bothers me. The Venn diagram of passing few if any bills and spewing abject lies with every breath is pretty close to a circle.
I do genuinely think though that there is a way out of that toxic malaise but it's hard:

Attention given to them should be coming from a volley of fact-checking from robust, well-funded newsrooms in their home districts so their true character is on display in their home districts while national media and we, as social media users, stop conflating drama with news.

When their actions lead to real-life consequences like insurrection, of course we need to shine a light on that because that's dangerous for America.
But, in all seriousness, someone traveling to Wyoming in January isn't 24/7 news. It's a stunt. Let the local reporters handle it.

None of this is to say representatives whose votes affect the country & world should be let off the hook and allow their claims to go unchecked or unverified.
No. It's more like let the reporters who should be covering them as their beat handle that. Don't reward them for drama.

This inherently means though that local/regional/state-based news organizations need to invest in political beat reporters and actually send them to the Hill to hold their members of Congress accountable. That of course takes money, which means buy-in from their communities.

The problem: coordinated, manufactured distrust in "the media" is deliberately designed to undermine faith in the accuracy of that reporting so people don't trust it, tune it out and opt for (dis/mis)information that aligns with pre-conceived worldviews instead of vetted facts.

That means news organizations have to have the understanding that every run-of-the-mill mistake becomes amplified and further erodes trust, even if not warranted, and that major errors in fact or judgment damage journalism as a whole. Fair or not, it's where society's at.

The way newsrooms can resolve that is through consistently producing hard-hitting investigative news stories that are as close to flawless as possible. That takes commitment, talent and sterling work ethic, which is a lot to ask from a young (read: underpaid, inexpensive) staff.

If people don't trust the fact-checkers, then Sideshow Conspiracy Caucus members who lie and can't pass squat or deliver for their districts can stay in office as long as their "fight" ideology lines up with enough of their base because, well, "Who's to say?"
#JournalismMatters