Don Wolfensberger at The Hill:
Former Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (D-Texas) and House Speaker Sam Rayburn (D-Texas) were great party leaders in their time. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) probably comes closest to their caliber of leadership in modern times. However, the real power today has gravitated to the more ambitious and motivational party members who come up with appealing ideas and the ability to persuade their caucus colleagues to follow.
A more splintered and combative environment leaves Congress incapable of forging compromises that can be signed into law. The closest we have come in recent times have been the rare instances of 12th-hour bipartisan agreements to prevent government shutdowns. But each of those instances has carried with it new perils for both parties’ leaders. Instead of being a new governing model, such last-minute funding deals have more resembled a fateful roll of the dice.
It was suggested at the outset of this piece that it would be unfair to gauge the success of committees today by measures of productivity used in the past since the world and its problems have become more complex and entangled. That was not meant as an excuse for the seeming laggardness of committees but more as an indicator of what complexity has wrought.
Complexity can breed contempt, and the contemptuous and paralyzing partisanship on display today is borne in part of complexity’s effects. Members wonder: What is it all about and what can be done about it? That’s when the tiny cracks first appear then spiderweb outwards into a widening chasm.
At least in times of alternating party and committee governance the word governance was the key to how to sow policy compromises that can take root in common ground and flourish. Today such governance has been replaced by partisan confrontational clashes, most of which can only be settled at the next election.