Civic education has recently taken a remarkable turn for the better, with the flowering of civics institutes in universities across the country which stress the importance of both informed and deliberative citizenship and statesmanship. Many of these programs have courses that examine how great leaders, especially executives such as American presidents, have led their nations during wars and crises. Additionally, however, we ought to study more ordinary deliberative politics, particularly as seen in legislative assemblies.
Studying the US Congress provides unique insights into deliberation and republican self-government beyond what is normally taught by many classes on statesmanship. Courses on statesmen usually emphasize executives like Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, or (in a course recently highlighted by the Free Press) Cyrus the Great. Such executives may also have been lawgivers, but the focus tends to be on the great deeds of individuals. Similarly, while study of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists is essential to understanding the American constitutional order, politics is rarely so theoretically sophisticated.
America surely needs great executive statesmen and an understanding of the abstract thought undergirding our republic, but it also needs to cultivate the talents of potential leaders who can take on the time consuming and often mundane work of routine politics. The cooperation, compromise, and mutual deliberation that permeates “average” politics in a republic is often overlooked. Admittedly, from time to time, model legislators are offered to the public. In 1956, then-Senator John F. Kennedy penned Profiles in Courage, highlighting senators throughout history who had taken a stand for what they thought was right; and more recently, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell published a book on great Kentucky legislators and their styles of legislative leadership. But we would suggest that the country needs to focus more on the qualities necessary in our legislators.
The need to study Congress is driven home by any consideration of contemporary politics. Polling regularly shows that Congress is the least trusted branch of government. Although it ought to be the branch of government best suited to deliberating and representing the public, its public image is shameful. Congress has often failed to perform its most basic functions and some of its members seem to revel in public displays of immaturity. Former Senator Ben Sasse was not wrong to tell his fellow senators, “The people despise us all.” But if Congress has a unique role to play in our constitutional order, then the public and our political leaders need to understand that role and live up to it.
But how could one approach teaching Congress? In contrast to courses on great executive statesmen, faculty and students are confronted with the daunting task of studying an institution that has existed in one form or another since 1774 and has a written record that easily dwarfs even large collections of presidential papers. Whereas only 45 men have served as president, the cast of congressmen and women is massive, with a respectable number of genuine statesmen, scores of major players, and an abundance of members playing bit parts. Still, the task is manageable with the proper focus.
To begin with, we should teach how the Constitution designs institutions to encourage (although it cannot guarantee) certain functional characteristics. Congress was designed to make law. Since law is, at the most basic level, a semi-permanent rule that commands or forbids certain actions, it is important that Congress deliberate and debate seriously before enacting a law. Bicameralism encourages this by mandating that two distinct chambers must separately consider a bill. Likewise, the plural character of each house promotes deliberation by giving many members, representing a wide variety of different constituencies and possessing a variety of viewpoints, the opportunity to speak.
The Senate’s smaller size, with senators representing the states and holding office for longer terms, ideally allows for more in-depth discussions and creates a degree of stability within the law. By contrast, the much larger House with its smaller districts and shorter terms, helps guarantee that the representatives are responsive to the public mood and that every geographic part of the country has an opportunity to have input into the formation of a law. These provisions not only encourage representative government but also promote legitimacy. Because Congress represents every part of the country, Philip Wallach argues in his recent book, Why Congress, “Only congressional deliberation is capable of tackling the [country’s] thorniest challenges in a way that the whole nation will accept as legitimate.”
Moreover, congressional debates can be taught in ways that might even engage students more than presidential speeches or The Federalist. While those works typically focus on presenting one side of an argument, congressional debates have counterarguments built into them. This provides students with the chance to read, understand, and perhaps even identify with different lines of argumentation presented in the same reading which can then be teased out in class discussions. Teaching congressional debates also allows students to see how abstract theoretical arguments may intertwine with the actual practice of politics and better understand the limits imposed by practice upon theory. Seeing how debate is promoted or stifled by congressional rules of procedure may further demonstrate how such ostensibly mundane issues contribute to the function (or dysfunction) of the institution.
Our representatives need examples of excellent legislators they can emulate, and voters need a standard they can measure their representatives against.
Even policy debates where one side clearly has the better moral claim can be instructive. For example, while the debates surrounding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are now best remembered for a lengthy Southern filibuster, the historical record is far more complex. Yes, some Southern representatives were obstructionists who made overtly racist arguments. At the same time, however, some opponents of the bill made sustained efforts to advance thoughtful constitutional and policy arguments. Advocates of civil rights, at their best, did far more than rail against obstruction and racism. They listened to opponents’ concerns, altered the legislation to accommodate undecided members, and built up a supermajority coalition that could break the filibuster. These debates show members working through an intricate and lengthy piece of legislation and trying to understand how it would function once enacted. And shockingly for modern observers of Congress, the records show members going out of their way to be polite and respectful to their opponents. The Civil Rights Act Congress—despite the controversy it faced—provides a refreshing reminder of what Congress has been and could be again.
When studying Congress, it also becomes apparent that a variety of issues are debated repeatedly. The history of the institution shows a cyclical return to perennial problems like partisanship and polarization, conflict between intra-party factions, gridlock, and the complications that arise from difficult personalities and political narcissism. Congressional history provides many examples that speak to contemporary politics.
One example of how congressional history can speak to our current politics comes from comparing the 2023 ouster of Speaker Kevin McCarthy with a similar effort in 1910 to weaken Speaker Joseph Cannon, as both show how much the speaker’s power depends on maintaining good relations with fringe factions within the ruling party. In each case, a minority of the Republican majority (eight conservatives in 2023, and a group of Progressive “insurgent” Republicans in 1910) formed a coalition with the Democrats to undercut a Republican speaker.
The differences between the cases are also instructive. In 1910, the insurgents were arguably moderates with conservative Republicans on their right flank and populist Democrats to their left; as a result, they held the balance of power and, alongside Democrats, could form a majority coalition capable of advancing their Progressive goals. In contrast, McCarthy was ousted by a coalition of members who were ideologically opposed to each other. The eight conservative Republicans and 208 Democrats who voted against McCarthy were united only by their dislike of the speaker and had no real ability (or desire) to work together after he was deposed. As a result, their one-day cooperation produced a decapitated institution without a governing majority and which was largely incapable of acting.
Examining these and other parallels empowers students to assess the contextual factors that make such moves more or less likely to succeed, as well as highlights the important fact that the manner in which such actions are performed matters. One approach can permit the House to perform its deliberative and lawmaking functions better, while another can plunge the body into chaos.
Students should study numerous other mundane instances from congressional history. For example, the voluminous records of debates and committee hearings considering major legislative reforms in 1946 and again in 1970 show serious legislators who are genuinely committed to their institution striving to improve it. Such records remind us that congressional weakness is nothing new and demonstrate that some members of Congress are “work horses” (in contrast to the “show horses” often featured in media) who consistently strive to serve their institution, the public, and the constitutional system. Likewise, historical debates over the filibuster and various impeachment trials illustrate both demagoguery and genuine deliberation and help us reflect on how Congress can best move forward in times of division and polarization.
The contemporary Congress has not lived up to the Constitution’s aspirations that it be a home of deliberation and wisdom, yet it is not in a hopeless situation either. But to be better, our representatives need examples of excellent legislators they can emulate, and voters need a standard they can measure their representatives against. Civic education that involves serious study of congressional deliberation may provide a meaningful contribution to the return of civic deliberation.
