In the early months of 2016, it is clear that the presidential election has dominated the front pages of newspapers and television news networks across America. The lives of the candidates are constantly covered with minute-by-minute updates. Any one sentence can be tomorrow's headline. Coverage and live streaming of Trump rallies, CNN debates and up to the minute results from primary and caucus contests eclipse all other new stories and headlines.
It’s almost as if, some may argue, the American media has forgotten the changing nature of national and global politics and current events.
With this obsessive coverage on the presidential election, many forget that the presidential election isn’t the only important election in the United States in 2016. Every member of the House of Representatives is up for reelection, as well as a third of all the sitting senators in accordance to the structure set up in the Constitution. Think about it; 435 House of Representative seats and 33 Senator races that can determine the course of the next several years. Yet, the American people chose to devalue these races. For many sitting members of congress, the chances of them being re-elected stand at 90 percent, based on statistics from the past 40 years of House elections.
But if we have these races every two years, then why is it that we elect the same people? Why is it that it seems like nothing changes? Part of the reason is because of the incumbency advantage. Congressional candidates have perks such as franking (mailing) privileges, casework, constant fundraising and an established organization. These natural incumbency advantages alone would be fair enough; however, with the ability to acquire a sizable war chest of funds, it makes it more difficult for any challenger to take on an incumbent. For others, their advantage solely name recognition, either because of their celebrity status or family name.
In addition to these advantages that keep incumbents in office, a theory within political science named Fenno’s Paradox offers another answer to the 90 percent re-election rate in Congress. While national media tends to cover candidates more pessimistically, local or state media outlets and stations tend to cover the more positive aspects of an incumbent. With this, constituents tend to think higher of their representatives while congress overall has failed them. With all these factors, it makes changing congress all the more difficult.
But that’s just on the national level. What about state legislatures? All 50 states tend to mirror the national election cycle. It is the state legislatures that determine the boundaries of congressional districts, and if a state legislature is particularly partisan, then they will make the districts arbitrarily partisan in favor of either a Republican safe or Democratic safe district. These state legislatures that vote to gerrymander typical run opposed or run in elections where there is less than a 30 percent voter turnout.
If change is to really occur, it won’t come from just electing a new president. The president’s role is simply to execute the law, operate the bureaucracy and to serve as commander in chief. The president cannot make the laws necessary to fix serious issues of social injustice, fiscal and monetary policy and smarter government. Congress has the ability to make this immediate change. But Congress doesn’t because the American people forget about how central Congress’s role is in politics. A dysfunctional congress doesn’t create the change that Americans want. What millions of Americans are tired of is the partisan nature of current congressional politics. That’s why so many Americans flock to Donald Trump's message of breaking away from partisan politics as the sacrifice of supporting a dangerous demagogue. It is a consequence of years of incumbent representatives who have sat in their seats for decades with primary concern is only their self-interest in the form of reelection.
It raises the question: can a Mr. Smith figure actually be elected in the face of all the incumbent advantages and institutional barriers? Can grassroots democracy challenge the status quo of dynastic congressional politics? That almost happened in an example highlighted by a documentary filmed during a 2004 congressional election asking the same question.
What the American people don’t know is that the answer to ending the standstill in congress lies with their vote. People need to vote not just for the incumbent but vote for the challenger can change things. If we had more people challenging the status quo of the incumbents, we can return to the days of meaningful compromise and we wouldn’t need to sign our morality away at the false words and promises of a demagogue and disillusioned presidential candidate.
The American people have a voice. Sometimes they chose not to use it. The answer begins at the root to our democracy. Changing congress from the ground level, state by state, will offer change in ways that will offer a new era of America.
