One of the defining features of the modern House—for both better and worse, but in balance for worse—is the ability of young members to get national media attention and thus viably pursue public sphere political strategies. It’s shaping so many aspects of the institution.
It’s obvious enabling the asshat caucus, but it’s also affecting candidates, the ambition structure, the parties, the retirements, the policy sphere, and the governing capacity, and so much more.
I think it’s pretty directly tied to the retirement of policy-keen members (as outlined in this thread). We’ve always had *some* showhorses in the House, but now there are more, and of a totally different, national character.
https://twitter.com/MattGlassman312/status/1157097655597768706
Like, if you wanted national attention as a freshman in 1985, it was almost impossible. Take a stand against a war your party supported. Or commit a felony. Otherwise, no national press. Now many have national fundraising and media and policy networks.
That’s not all bad! But IMO it is contributing to the dysfunction of the House in a pretty big way.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
