CONGRESS'S QUAGMIRE I

Fix Federal Debt
Nov 12, 2025
6 min read

Evidence: CAREERISM, ANIMOSITY & DISCORD, POLARIZATION, BLOCK VOTING

Quagmire is defined as “a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position: Predicament”

Merriam-Webster

AN EXAMPLE OF QUAGMIRE

Peterson Foundation debt graph until 2054 showing 7 think tanks.

These seven think tanks in 2024 showed in detailed reports how to put America

on a responsible and fair fiscal path forward. Thoughtful research has already been done!

WHY IS CONGRESS PROCRASTINATING?

This series of Substack posts over the coming four months will continue with discussion of evidence that our Congress is alarmingly ineffective and the causes of this quagmire.

CAREERISM

Careerism: One finds disparaging definitions of careerism in a dictionary or Wikipedia, but let’s just say it is a strong focus on staying in a position, often at the expense of doing one’s best. What causes careerism? Power, prestige, perks, and money.

Cooperating to solve problems works so well

What are the effects of careerism?

Careerism causes a shift of the members’ focus from problem solving legislation to campaigning for reelection – including raising money.
It effectively disenfranchises many voters, giving them a representative or senator who doesn’t care enough or work diligently to respond to voters’ problems.
It causes members to avoid risks when voting.
Members are more likely to pay attention to lobbyists than to individual citizens.
It causes intense allegiance to one’s party, its successes, and its chances of winning – at the expense of solving America’s serious problems.
This focus on winning creates friction and competition with members of the other party, reducing negotiation to solve problems together. I.e., The us-vs-them mentality.
Careerism, coupled with power gravitating to the elite leaders in Congress, can lead toward boredom and to power, prestige, perks, and money becoming more important to members than accomplishments.
It leads to voters feeling that they have no power to influence course corrections and thus to apathy and not voting.
In summary, careerism means a strong focus on getting reelected continually. Since House members stand for election every two years, they are actively running for office most of the time – a huge distraction.

Careerism is a symptom, not a root cause. It follows from the desire for power and prestige. This power allows a member to be more likely to get elected, simultaneously reducing the pressure to solve problems for voters. We will see later that the root causes of a confrontational Congress are mechanisms that allow excessive careerism and prevent honest competition.

ANIMOSITY & DISCORD

It is only to be expected that competition will exist among people who are intelligent and ambitious. But, when relationships deteriorate to the point that they can be characterized by animosity and discord, damage is being done to the organization – Congress. Few would disagree that differences in recent years have led to unusually bitter and dysfunctional feelings among members. This is occurring both between and within the two political parties. Why?

Individual members are disillusioned that they don’t have the power and influence they expected in their roles. Why is this? The striving for power between the two parties has led to a shift of influence from members to party leaders, reduction in responsibility and authority of committees, downgrading of regular order including floor debate and open voting, and lack of respect for individual opinions. Why did this happen? The emphasis on a party’s winning legislative votes and elections has led to an unfortunate and dysfunctional centralization of power in Congress. Also, there is a feeling that the party in power can do anything it wants, leading to it taking inflexible positions, often well to the left or right of center.

Members of Congress are overloaded but not allowed to exercise the powers they rightly believed they would have in Congress, creating apathy among many of them. Their hands are tied. The focus often is on checkmating the other party rather than solving our country’s problems.

POLARIZATION

Reference: The Disunited States, The Economist, September 3, 2022

The lead editorial in the referenced Economist began by focusing on the degree of polarization we are now seeing in state governments. It referred to the founders’ concept that our states could be laboratories where new ideas and policies might be tried without involving the entire union. But what is happening has instead degenerated into a culture war. Why is this?

In 2022, of the 50 states, 37 were ruled by a single party, meaning both houses of their legislatures plus the governor’s office. This made them one-party states. Many were truly one-party because the preponderance of their people is conservative or liberal. Others have their elections influenced by their electoral methods. In any case, control by one party leads to less negotiation or compromise in state governments and can result in radical positions and laws. It sounds an awful lot like our federal government, doesn’t it? This is no accident because similar electoral methods and the same passion to dominate politics and win the “game” exist throughout the nation, because state lawmakers often rise to federal office, and last – but not least – because there are only two effective parties throughout the country making legislating a zero-sum game; each one is either winning big-time or losing big-time. There should be a career for competent problem solvers to have rewarding political careers without participating in constant battle.

We can have a more peaceful and collaborative Congress!

The article moves from the states to the federal level and politics in general. It states that American “dysfunction” threatens not only the U.S., but also a world that still depends on us to lead. “The federal government should stop neglecting its responsibilities. So, what do we do about this muddy field in which we find ourselves mired? The Economist article said “…more than this America needs electoral reform. It should end gerrymandering, which lets politicians choose their voters rather than vice versa.” Now there is a sentence that is important!

The Economist article wraps up saying that we voters have a responsibility. Amen! We not only have a responsibility, but we have a sovereign duty.

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”

Albert Einstein

Let’s return to polarization. Is polarization originating in our federal and state legislatures or in the populace at large? Well, which came first, the chicken or the egg? It doesn’t matter. One feeds on the other. That said, more civil politics would be a huge step in reducing polarization in America.

Polarization and ill feelings are fueled by other conditions. Members are overloaded with the huge volume and variety of matters being managed by the federal government; there is no way a member can be competent in even a small fraction of these topics. Why? The number of federal issues grows naturally over time with population and as new topics are added – like the Internet, aviation, nuclear energy, artificial intelligence, and China trade. In addition, it also grows as the federal government takes on tasks formerly the responsibility of state and local governments. Rather than “whose problem is this?”, we now hear “when is the federal government going to do something about this?”

BLOCK VOTING

Congress has sunk into nearly – 100% voting by party – block voting. Why? What are the root causes of many members of Congress voting against their conscience and their constituents’ wishes?

Reasons include: careerism, led by the need for support and money in the next election; fear of the power of congressional leaders to disrupt careers; power and prestige of being on the winning team and a desire for my team to win the next election; having only two effective parties that reduces most topics to a bipolar/winner-take-all arguments; getting caught up in the game of crushing the other party; the enormous volume and variety of federal commitments; single-member districts and safe seats; first-past-the-post voting methods. The reasons in this list are really symptoms. We must dig deeper to isolate the root causes.

Do some members of Congress buck the system and not cooperate with their party leaders? One can think of examples, and they are often to be admired for doing what they feel is right. However, the wrath of the party can and does destroy their careers rather than listening to their suggestions. This is very sad.

What can we do? Create electoral systems fostering more than two parties – and competition.