POLITICS : The Great Congressional Exodus: When the Center Does Not Hold

In her speech at the Democratic National Convention in 1992, Barbara Jordan, who died last week, spoke eloquently, as always, of the philosophy that guided her in politics. “We seek to unite people, not divide them. As we seek to unite people, we reject both white racism and black racism. This party will not tolerate bigotry under any guise. Our strength in this country is rooted in our diversity.”

In her final act of service to her country, Jordan chaired a presidential commission on illegal immigration that recommended the cutoff of welfare and non-emergency health-care benefits, tighter controls on employment and the provision of public education to children, as the Constitution requires. At a time when Californians found themselves increasingly polarized by Proposition 187, Jordan’s approach was to find the common ground that could unite the diverse members of her panel. That’s not the way politics is done in Washington today.

Jordan first came to national prominence as a member of the House Judiciary Committee that voted to impeach President Richard M. Nixon. One of her colleagues on that committee was Rep. William S. Cohen of Maine, then a freshman Republican who broke ranks with his party to vote to subpoena the White House tapes, and later voted to impeach the president. This week, now Sen. Cohen became the 13th member of the U.S. Senate to announce he would not seek reelection, joining 35 members of the House who have already announced their retirements. It is a record pace of departures--the closest historical precedent came 100 years ago, when 11 of the 90 senators chose not to seek reelection.

Cohen could have won reelection easily. His approval ratings in his home state are more than 70%. No significant challenger was opposing him. But he cited the stalemate on the budget, and the disappearance of the political center, in announcing his decision to retire. Others among the retirees have sounded similar themes, emphasizing the appalling partisanship, the endless fund-raising and the mean-spiritedness that has come to define politics.

Last week was a prime example, as the never-ending partisan assault on Hillary Rodham Clinton wholly overshadowed the breakdown in negotiations on the budget. No one would confuse Sen. Alfonse M. D’Amato (R-N.Y.), chair of the Whitewater Committee, with Jordan. Their enterprises could not be more different.

It’s not that Congress has never been this nasty before. Describing the Congress he visited in 1842, Charles Dickens found “some men of high character and great abilities” but many who practiced “despicable trickery at elections; underhanded tamperings with public officers; cowardly attacks upon opponents” along with “aidings and abettings of every bad inclination in the popular mind.” He heard one member threaten to cut another’s throat.

Members of Congress regularly attacked each verbally, and sometimes with weapons. Rep. John Randolph of Virginia and Rep. Willis Alston of North Carolina ended dinner at their boardinghouse one night by throwing glasses at each other; six years later, in response to an insult, Randolph drew blood, hitting Alston in the head with his riding crop. Dueling was finally outlawed in the Capitol in 1838, after William Graves of Kentucky, egged on by Henry Wise, the man who later ordered John Brown’s hanging as governor of Virginia, shot and killed Rep. Jonathan Cilley of Maine in a duel fought with rifles at 100 yards. During the debates on the Compromise of 1850, Sen. Thomas Hart Benson of Missouri angrily advanced on Sen. Henry Foote of Mississippi, who pulled out his pistol; members regularly carried weapons to the floor.

But at least the early Congresses managed to build roads, set tariffs, settle international disputes and vastly expand the country. That’s more than can be said for their successors, who spent two years debating health care, and agreeing on nothing, and seem perilously close to accomplishing as little on the budget. The fights in the 18th century turned on real issues: the incorporation of new territories; the question of slavery. The White House travel office hardly fits in the same category of importance.

There are many who believe turnover strengthens political institutions, bringing in fresh blood and new perspectives from those who are not career politicians. Indeed, virtually every poll has found that most Americans favor term limits on elective office. And no one expects any seat to go wanting for replacements.

But the men and women who are choosing to leave Congress at this time are exactly those who the country most needs, those who approach politics in the way Jordan did--seeking unity and not division. In losing Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) and Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and Nancy Landon Kassebaum (R-Kan.) and Mark O. Hatfield (R-Ore.) and Cohen, to name just a few, the Senate is losing the moderate center, the bridge-builders and independent thinkers who, ironically, best match the mood of the country. Poll after poll finds that the country wants a balanced budget--but with a smaller tax cut and smaller reductions in Medicare. That is precisely the type of package one would expect a Cohen and a Bradley and a Kassebaum and a Nunn to agree, the sort of compromise that can be forged at the center. Poll after poll shows Americans disgusted with partisanship, distrustful of ideologues and fed up with the bickering of the two parties.

But the mood of the country is not the watchword of the Capitol. Polls notwithstanding, compromise has become a dirty word--to compromise is to cave. Politics today is increasingly the preserve of ideologues, not consensus-builders; courage is defined as saying “no,” not as finding the common ground that allows people to agree. As more and more moderates turn away from politics, disillusioned and disgusted, the power of the ideological extremes only increases, and the chance for solutions dims.

It is a different sort of duel than was typical in the 19th century, but it is, in its way, far more dangerous. What is driving Americans away from politics is also driving out the center, in a vicious circle that leaves our politics less representative and our democracy less secure.*