← Civics & Coffee: A History Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript33 lines
- [00:01]
A
Welcome to Civics and Coffee, a history podcast. The show all about United States history delivered to you in the time it takes to enjoy your morning cup of coffee. I'm your host, Alicia, a historian trained in United States history with a passion for telling both the known and unknown parts of America's past. So grab your coffee and get ready for some bite sized history. Welcome back everyone. In case you haven't caught on by the constant text messages, commercials and spam fed into your inbox, 2026 is a midterm election year when the entire House of Representatives and a third of the Senate is up for re election and when the approval rating of elected leaders is at an all time low. You may be wondering, how exactly did we get here and why does everything feel so, well, stuck? Dr. Mike Hornberg explored that question and more and has some fascinating conclusions and suggestions for how to make it better. I hope you all enjoy the conversation. Hello everyone. Joining me today is Dr. Maya Kornberg. She she is a senior Research fellow and manager at NYU Law's Brennan center for justice, whose written work has been featured in the Washington Post, NPR and the New York Times, among other outlets. She is also the author of the recently published book How Money, Media and Violence Prevent Change in Congress, which will be the focus of our conversation today. Welcome, Dr. Kornberg.
- [01:43]
B
Thank you so much for having me. It's great to be here with you today.
- [01:47]
A
Thank you so much for coming on. Let's dive into this incredible book. Can you give us a bit of background on how you came to your research and what prompted this study?
- [01:59]
B
So this is now my second book on Congress. And so I'll start by saying, because it might not be obvious to people, given how unpopular the institution is, just explaining why I'm interested in Congress. You know, I've dedicated my whole life to, to making democracy work better for the people that it's meant to serve. My professional trajectory has been dedicated to that. And I believe that Congress is really at the center of that struggle, that it is not just the people's branch, but really the linchpin of our democracy. And we're seeing the ramifications of a weak Congress. Now, what happens to our democracy when we don't have a Congress that can stay stand up both to executive abuse of power and for ordinary American voices? And so that's, that's why I came to the study of Congress. And the reason that I was interested in writing this book is because I also believe, as a core belief, that we have to look backward in order to understand how to chart a course forward. Given that, I know that there's a lot of history nerds probably who listen to this podcast. I'm sure that I'm preaching to the choir with that. But the book is a 50 year survey. It starts 50 years ago, and it documents how since 1974, with the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, how Congress has become so much harder to make change and because of the relentless fundraising pressure and because of increasing fear of violence and because of the distorted lens now of media and of social media in particular. And so it documents kind of how we got here, how much harder it is to make change today. And it suggests some path forward for unsticking Congress.
- [03:46]
A
Yeah. And you know, part of the. Your historical lens, you talk about the fact that you look at three separate classes. I'm curious, what were some of the themes that you saw in the three new congressional classes that you studied?
- [04:00]
B
So there's some universal themes. I mean, first I'll zoom out and say that I chose to anchor the book in three wave election years in Congress, the classes of 1974, 1994 and 2018, because I believe that Congress is the most changeable when there's new people coming in to change it and to unstick sticky power structures. These are also three classes that are tied to impeachment proceedings in different ways. And so they speak to inflection points in terms of Congress's relationship between that be the executive. And I think that they share things in common and they also speak to the differences. So in terms of things that they share in common, these are three classes that were actually younger and more diverse in terms of different kinds of lived experience than the average member of Congress at the time that they came in. And they brought with that a kind of freshness to the institution. There are three classes who, to differing degrees I think, maybe less so with the class of 2018, but still to some extent shook up power structures in the institution and the way that the House in particular works. And they are three classes where if we look at them, and again, this is not necessarily only true of wave election classes, but I think it's true of savvy reformers in general. We can, and I try to parse this out in the book, learn just what lessons about how to be an effective local lawmaker. There are three classes that were effective and employed tools that I think we can learn from today. You know, like building relationships with senior members and harnessing their collective power is a big class. Things that I think are really relevant for us to think about, especially ahead of possibly another big class of freshmen coming in in November. So those are the things they have in common. But as I said at the outset, the class of 2018, which is, you know, a lot of those folks are still in Congress now. And I think this is just kind of speaks to the experience of contemporary members. They're having to reckon with things that they didn't in the 70s. They have, I would argue, a lot less legislative power to make change because of the way that power structures have changed in the chamber. And they are reckoning with this dynamic of fundraising and of rising threats against members and things in a way that I delve into in the book that I think is quite different from 50 years ago.
- [06:15]
A
You talk about how each of these classes are were tied to kind of impeachment proceedings. You could kind of say even broader speaking, kind of scandals. Right? These were kind of tied to scandals in some vein or another. And so I'm curious on what your take was. Why do you think scandals at the federal level prompt Americans who otherwise may not have had any interest in politics to kind of run for Congress?
- [06:45]
B
So I can tell you what we know in terms of the research on these classes and other things, and that is that, you know, if you take, for example, the record numbers of women who ran and won in 2018, there's research by political scientist Jennifer Lawless and others showing that that was a direct reaction. Many of the women who ran then ran as a direct reaction to the election of Donald Trump at 2020 16, and what that meant for women across the country. So I think we can talk about a reactionary kind of wave of reform. Similarly, in 1974 and in 1994, these were folks who were running change campaigns. Same in 2018. And I think that that speaks to more than anything the moment of frustration of the public. I think we can learn from these wave elections where we were at as an American public. And in all of these instances, there was a lot of anger at the president and at the status quo for different reasons, whether it be the Vietnam War or the kind of different unpopular things that the Clinton presidency was doing in the 90s. There's a lot to unpack there in terms of why people were angry. But again, I think that that is something that I really think about a lot in the context of where we're sitting today. In terms of the midterm elections, I see kind of similar kinds of frustration and anger at the status quo, animating a lot of campaigns now. And again, I Think this is cyclical in American politics and in a way healthy and leads to people breathing fresh air into an institution that needs to be shaken up every so often.
- [08:32]
A
So you talk a lot about the, the accomplishments of the, the, the class of 1974. So can you talk about some of the major accomplishments of that 1974 congressional.
- [08:46]
B
So the class of 1974 really shook up the way that the institution was organized. They come in and they are entering Congress at a time when Congress is standing up to the executive in different ways. It's passing the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which is still kind of, I would argue, a framework that Congress should be strengthening and relying upon when it comes to reining in executive abuse of war powers. They passed the Impoundment Control act in the 1970s. That is supposed to reign in power of the purse and again can be strengthened because we've seen presidents manipulate loopholes in that and they change the way the power is allocated in the chamber when they come in these, the, this new wave amidst kind of all these changes that are happening. So they take the power for committee assignments away from the Ways and Means Committee and they give it to the party steering committee. They are instrumental in changing the way that chairs are elected committee chairs. And as a result of this, they're able to, as one member of the class put it, topple old lions and kind of topple these deeply entrenched committee chairs. And a lot of members of this class actually rise up to be committee or subcommittee chairs relatively early in their tenure. And that's something that we just don't see today because us as a chain kind of ripple effect, unintended ripple effect of what they did in the 70s in giving power to the party steering committee to make decisions. That kind of started a trajectory towards what we see today, which is the power is so centralized in parties now. And then other changes that happened in the 90s I talk about in the book also disempowered committees. So now actually we have party leaders having all the power and non individual members. But again, in the 70s they were really changing it in a way that empowered younger, newer members to really build expertise and build power in areas that interested them through committee leadership positions.
- [10:41]
A
One of the interesting parts of the book for me was your discussion about the Buckley Supreme Court decision. So I was wondering if you could kind of talk a little bit more about that decision and how it impacted congressional races and relationships.
- [10:58]
B
Right. So in 1976, the Buckley v. Vallejo Supreme Court decision is a decision that says that Spending limits are unconstitutional in campaigns. And so as a result of that, money starts to flood campaigns. And of course, a lot of us are then familiar with Citizens United in 2010, which accelerates this when it allows unlimited outside spending and campaigns. But I think what people don't always realize is the way that this has actually shaken up power structures in Congress again. So now, as a result of this ruling, money starts to flood campaigns. And we see first attendant Waxman in the late 70s start what's called a leadership pact, which allows him to donate money to other members. Right. More money than he could from his campaign committee to other members in order to curry favorite and in order to campaign for things like committee chairmanship. And so fast forward 50 years now, almost every member of the House has a leadership pack and they donate money to other members in order to build relationships. Members are now expected to pay dues to the party, sometimes of millions of dollars, to get onto committees to get party leader positions. And so it's a pay to play system, quite literally, that is not only extremely distortive, but in my experience talking about this publicly since the book came out two months ago, I've actually been surprised at how little people know about that element of money distorting politics because we hear so, so much. Just constantly I'm bombarded with headlines about campaign spending. And that's important. We need to continue to talk about that because it's prohibitive for candidates. But let's be talking more about what happens after folks are elected because it's equally shocking and equally kind of similar to what we see with campaigns. It recreates structural disadvantages that are faced by groups with less access to wealth. So the book tells the story of Marcia Fudge, who represented a working, a largely working class community and told a staffer that she doesn't know how she's going to leverage that community in fundraising to pay dues to the party, which again, is not a member saying, I don't know how I'm going to raise money in order to get reelected. This is a member saying, I don't know how I'm going to raise money to pay off my party. So I just think we have to shine a spotlight on that process right now. And I think that's a direct result of what started with Buckley.
- [13:23]
A
Yeah, that was one of the most fascinating parts of the book for me. Like I said when I started the question, I like to believe that I'm fairly attuned to the political history of the country, and I think I was fairly ignorant to that aspect. And so definitely wanted to ask you about that. So thank you for kind of illuminating that in your book and in this discussion. And then one of the changes that you cover in your book is the election and elevation of more women to Congress. So how did women kind of navigate their new jobs and what did support look like early on?
- [14:04]
B
Right, so one of the changes of the book shines a light on is the creation of the Congressional Women's Caucus. And Elizabeth Holtzman, a former congresswoman from Brooklyn, who was one of the co founders of that caucus, is one of the people that I interviewed for the book. And of course, that caucus then evolves in the 90s. One of the changes that the Republicans make when they, when they regain control of the House is actually to disempower caucuses like the Congressional Black Caucus or the Women's Caucus and take away resources. But anyhow, in some way, some form, they continue to function from the 70s until today. And when I talk to women in Congress, both who are there today and who were there in the past, they talk about the Women's Caucus. And I think it's important to know this is similar to the ways that folks talk about, you know, other, other affinity groups in Congress like the cbc. They talk about it as a way for them to find a mentor. And especially in a place that it's important to note. You know, I think baked into the way that it was built is, is racism and misogyny and, and it's really institution that was built by white men for white men in many ways, which I'll get into. So just having a mentor to support you, to understand how to navigate things, we see being really important with, with caucuses. The caucus is also a place where women can come together across party lines to work on issues that matter to them. And we know actually from other political science research that when you elect more women, there is more of a focus on issues that affect families, on issues that affect children. And again, this is just one of many issues that the caucus has worked on historically. So it is a place also for legislative change and advocacy. The other thing is that banding together as members can help to actually push forward changes. So Congress as an institution, as I mentioned, was not one that was particularly accommodating of women and other groups who were coming in. And I point out to folks that women didn't even have a bathroom in Congress until the 90s. They were using the visitor restrooms. Until Sometime around the 70s, women weren't allowed to swim in the Congressional pool. Women who are members of Congress because men might want to swim naked in the pool. That's an actual rule. It just, you know, and there's a list is endless in terms of ways that women were excluded and ways that it was a boys club. And so again, the creation of the Women's caucus in the 70s, which again, is a time that, as I mentioned, you also see the Hispanic Caucus and caucuses forming around other, both racial, ethnic, and other affinity groups that help people to create community, to find mentorship, and to advocate for different changes.
- [16:58]
A
Yeah, it really highlights how. How important it was to get specific agenda items and really how representation matters. I think that that really came through in the book, but kind of turning to the darker side of some of the history in the last 50 years, you talk about the rise of violence in Congress. And so, you know, how and why has congressional violence evolved in the last 50 years?
- [17:29]
B
Right. So, I mean, I'm, I'm quick to point out always when I talk about this, that of course, American political violence is not new, is definitely as old as the country itself, not older. But in the last 50 years of. The book focuses on, it is manifesting in different ways in Congress. And that, I think, is partially a result of social media becoming a major vector for abuse, which I talk about in the book. It's partially a result of changes in gun ownership legislation and patterns in this country. And I think it's also a direct result of the fact that violence, which has always been racialized and gendered in this country is affecting Congress differently when we see an increasingly diverse membership. So the book talks about three ways in which then this rising violence. And again, and if we look at data, it is rising against members of Congress. You know, just between 2018 and 2023, according to the US Capitol Police, the incidence of threats and violence against members doubled, and it's continued to rise since then. So the book talks about the way in which this is affecting lawmaking, and it points out that, first of all, members are afraid to engage with constituents. Now, one member told me there's parts of her own district that she doesn't go to, particularly because a lot of her district staff are women. And I think that that's important to point out when we look at kind of the gender disparity in staffing in general in Congress, but there is a tendency towards kind of gender imbalance in district staff. So, you know, that I think is shocking. We're seeing members cancel town halls. We saw Ilhan Omar recently attacked at a town hall. We're seeing members say that they're afraid of taking on hot button issues for fear of violence. Members told me many instances of that in the research for this book. And there's quotes in the book of folks like Liz Cheney saying that she knows Republican members who say to her, I would have voted to impeach the president, but I was afraid for the safety of myself and my family. So that's extremely distortive. And again, with that and with everything that I'm saying about violence, it's important for me to also note that it's not unique to Congress. As I mentioned at the outset, Congress, I view it as a microcosm of bigger problems in this country and in politics writ large. And that is why I study it. And we've actually done surveys at the Brennan center, my colleagues and I, of violence facing state and local officeholders, and we found similar experiences there. I had a conversation with a state lawmaker in interviews for that study that really stuck with me where she said that she cared about gun control, but she wasn't going to take that on as an issue when her sons were young because she was afraid for their safety. And so again, it's an issue that is affecting the entire pipeline and it's an issue that we have to reckon with. And the last thing that I'll mention, which again is a pipeline issue, is the attrition problem. Again, we're sitting here in a midterm election. There's a lot of open seats also because of a wave of retirement. And so we have to think about that. And I've had conversations with members and again, they've said this also publicly saying, is it worth putting my family at risk? And again, this is especially true, I think, of women and of other groups who violence has a disparate impact on. In our survey of local office holders that I mentioned a few years ago, we found that among women in local office, about half said that violence was partially dissuading them from running for reelection or higher office. Nancy Pelosi's memoir, which I quote in the book, she says that when she talks to young, dynamic women. Young, dynamic people. Sorry. Particularly women thinking of running for Congress, they tell her how scared they are of what happened to Paul Pelosi, the violent attack on her husband in their San Francisco home, that that's the biggest deterrent. So again, we have to look at that as a pipeline issue when we're looking at people that we want to encourage to run and also particularly already underrepresented groups in halls of Power, like women.
- [21:32]
A
So we've talked about kind of some of the deterrence to running and some of the kind of the quagm once they're already there. I think one of the other things that you talked about in terms of throwing a wrench into the system for once people are elected and are in Congress is the Contract With America. So can you talk about that impact and how that's really altered Congress's ability to function?
- [22:05]
B
Right. So this is one of the pivotal moments that the book discusses. The 1994 election is an election in which there's a landslide win for Republicans and they take back control of the house after 40 years of uninterrupted control by Democrats of the House. And Newt Gingrich, who was already in Congress, rises to be the party speaker and they campaign with a change document. Again, as I mentioned, all the wave elections I look at in the book of change camp, Change elections, Contract with America is a change document. So it's their agenda for change and it includes both policy priorities, things like a balanced budget, but also things like term limiting committee chairs, which they institute at the time and still exists in the Republican caucus, and other kind of internal changes. And when Newt Gingrich becomes Speaker and Republicans regain control, what happens in the 90s is, I like to quote a journalist from the 90s who called it a, a self lobotomy. Congress really lobotomizes itself. It cuts funding to an entire congressional support agency called the Office of Technology Assessment that used to help Congress understand science, dramatically decreases funding to other support agencies and to committees who are normally the spaces that help Congress specialize. And it really just disempowers members, it disempowers Congress. And we're seeing the ramifications of that today. We're seeing Congress make costly mistakes on issues when it doesn't have technical support. We're seeing Congress not understand science and having difficulty regulating things like AI or social media. And you know what? It would be super helpful if they had an entire support agency that was meant to help them understand science. We're seeing Congress unable to stand up to the executive. And I think that's a direct result. But the fact that Congress today has several thousand fewer staff members than it did a few decades ago. And again, you cannot stand up to an executive branch. We know this from legislative studies around the world. If you don't have independent expertise, you need that in order to conduct oversight. So again, what happened in the 90s has not been undone. Congress can undo it. It's worth mentioning it should undo it, and it should invest in itself in order to move forward.
- [24:27]
A
I think your book does such a wonderful job in terms of providing the reader with a map and a flashlight to understanding Congress and the inner workings. I think for so many Americans, Congress and how it functions is very obtuse.
- [24:45]
B
It's very strange.
- [24:47]
A
But I'd like to get your thoughts on what does the American public, in your opinion, kind of maybe misunderstand about the behind the scenes mechanics of Congress that your book specifically helps explain and lay bare.
- [25:00]
B
So one of the big things that I try to demystify for folks is, you know, a lot of people that I know focus a lot on campaigns. And especially right now, we're in campaign season. Let's get out, let's canvass for a candidate that we believe in, let's donate to a campaign, whatever it is, let's engage. That's all great. It's worth mentioning, but I think that there's this assumption that we elect people and then they can just magically do everything that we wanted them to do, but the reality is that they're elected. And one recently retired member who I just did a book event with compared freshman members to potted plants. And he was just a member of Congress himself. He said that's about the amount of power the freshman members have. And so, again, I think that that's, that's what we need to reckon with. We need to think about the day after the election. That's what I would want Americans to think about. We can't just think about electing people and then thinking that then we'll stand up to the president and we'll do all of these things. How are we going to do that when power is right now so centralized in party leadership in Congress that there are members saying that there are bills pushed down that they don't have time to read before they vote on them, because there is a complete breakdown of regular order, or what's known as regular order, which is kind of the way that the bills were supposed to and used to become law. How are we going to do that when members are dialing for dollars all day long? And some of them tell me that they spend every meal time dialing for dollars and again have to constantly worry about fundraising in order to pay their way onto different committees? And how are you going to elect someone who's going to create, create change when they're afraid to do a town hall in their district because their family might be physically attacked and they might be physically attacked because of positions that they take. So, you know, I think we really need to. You know, I really appreciate your question, because if I could leave the audience with one thing, it would be that let us stop thinking that we're just going to elect people and that can be the end of it. And more broadly, let's just stop thinking that voting is enough. In this country and in democracy in general, I don't focus on voting. I focus on what happens after voting because I believe that voting is important, but that democracy is a continuous conversation between members and the people that they represent. And so we need to take that mindset into account, and we need to focus on the campaign finance reform and combating political violence and all the things that are necessary so that the people that we elect actually have the power to make the changes that we want them to.
- [27:38]
A
Democracy is a full context sport, 100%.
- [27:42]
B
Yeah.
- [27:44]
A
And so what are some reforms that you hope to see Congress implement in the future based on the research that you've conducted?
- [27:52]
B
Well, certainly my book speaks to the urgency of ending Citizens United, of campaign finance reform, of getting big money out of politics, which is something we know that the public wants. It's completely distortive. We need to also think about other things like small donor public financing, which is a policy reform that the Brennan center has been an outspoken advocate for, and that exists in places like New York City and New York State. And that's a system where candidates can raise small dollars that are then matched by public funds. And we know that that's a great equalizer, for example, for women running, because women are more likely to raise money when they run from a collection of small donations rather than a few mega donors, if you compare them to male candidates. So. So things like that, I think certainly can help. We need to be thinking about retooling Congress. I mentioned all of the changes that have happened so Congress can change things once again. It can, you know, empower committee leaders and subcommittees. It can modernize committee jurisdictions, which it hasn't done since the 70s. That can either refund the OTA, or I would argue, you know, just at least empower agencies like the Government Accountability Office. That takes on a lot of what the OTA used to do. This agency that I mentioned that was defunded to be having kind of more brain power to help Congress, science and technology issues. So all of these things, I think, are things that Congress can do and that, you know, we. We can be empowering it to do. Congress has recently increased investment in security resources for members, which I think is Great. Which my book advocates for. Members now have a security stipend. There's more of an investment in residential security. The U.S. capitol Police are building out field offices because members, when I spoke to them, said that they feel sometimes most vulnerable actually at home in their district, as I was saying, not necessarily in The Capitol or U.S. capitol Police is there and has a presence. So, you know, that's, that's a great beginning. I think they should continue to focus on security as we as a country continue to fight against the normalization of political violence and speak out against it. There's a lot of things that Congress can do, I think now to invest in itself. And there's a lot of things that we as a country, as I mentioned, can do to combat these kind of forces of money in politics and violence that are so distortive.
- [30:25]
A
And so we've talked about a lot, but there's still so much that we haven't talked about. So is there anything we haven't touched on that you want future readers to know?
- [30:36]
B
You know, one of the things that I always try to highlight in addition to the it's not enough to elect people is obviously I wrote a book called Stuck. So I'm not arguing that everything is working. I am very much convinced of the fact that it is not working. But there's a tendency right now that I see when I talk to people to disengage, to say, well, everything is stuck. Congress is not delivering for us. Why would we do things like, you know, I book argues for giving members of Congress a raise for the first time in 15 years. Why would we do that when the institution isn't working and it's so unpopular? I would argue that it could not be more important to engage with Congress and to resource Congress, because as I mentioned, you're not going to have a check on the executive branch if you don't have a Congress that can work. And sure, let's elect people that we care about, but let's also be aware of the fact that we need to give them the resources that they need to understand AI in order to regulate AI, to have independent information, in order to conduct oversight of executive agencies, to have, you know, a salary that is at the very least adjusted for inflation after 15 years of not getting a raise, if we want people who are not only independently wealthy people already to be able to afford to serve as members of Congress. So we need to think about this, I think, from a systems perspective, and we need to support Congress to do better because disengaging is just going to make things worse. And we also need to, I think, be showing up at the town halls and at the field hearings and at the committee hearings. We have to be doing that. As I mentioned, there's already a lot of ways in which civic engagement is constricted right now as a result of violence and other things. And so I think it's so important to be showing up and engaging with Congress. And that's something that I always try to highlight because I definitely don't want to feed the tendency of just bemoaning congressional ineptitude. I wrote a book about what's not working so that we can fix it, not so that we can just, you know, yell at Congress more. I think it has enough of that already if you look at recent approval ratings.
- [32:42]
A
And so before I let you go, where should people go when they finish this book and they want to learn more about you and the work that you do?
- [32:49]
B
Well, you can certainly go to my website, mayakornberg.com or find me on social media. And of course the book is sold wherever books are sold. But I'd also encourage folks to check out the Brennan center website, which is Brennan Center.org and there you can find a lot of resources, not just about Congress, but also more broadly about all of our work to strengthen American democracy and justice in this country. Also, I would, I would just direct folks in particular to some of the work that we've done both on a state and local level on things like political violence and on things like campaign finance reform, which as I mentioned, are not just a congressional issue. So you can find all the resources@brennan center.org wonderful.
- [33:35]
A
So to all the listeners out there, if you have any interest in the historical machinations of Congress or want a better understanding of how our federal legislative body got so polariz and some ideas on how we can maybe move forward, definitely consider picking up a copy of Stuck. Thank you again, Dr. Kornberg.
- [33:54]
B
Thank you so much for having me. I really enjoyed the conversation with you today.
- [33:58]
A
My thanks again to Dr. Kornberg for spending her time with me. If you have any interest in learning more about the increased polarization in American politics, consider picking up a copy of Stuck, available wherever five books are sold, including my bookshop storefront. Thanks, peeps. I'll see you next time. Thanks for sitting down with me as I explored this chapter of American history. If you liked what you heard, be sure to subscribe and share with your friends. I look forward to our next cup of coffee together.