| Get Jonathan Bernstein's newsletter every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. The big impeachment news over the past few days has been that almost all of the potential swing voters in the House have lined up with their parties. We're now likely to see even stricter party-line voting than was the case for President Bill Clinton's impeachment, which has always been thought of as very partisan. In fact, while there are still several undeclared lawmakers, it's quite possible that we'll only have one defection in the final vote — Minnesota's Collin Peterson, a Democrat who has said he's leaning toward voting "no." That's not counting two party switchers: New Jersey Democrat-about-to-be-Republican Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, who will vote with his new party on impeachment, and Republican-turned-independent Justin Amash, who will vote "yes." (Amash became an independent in July, before the Ukraine scandal broke, but his switch was certainly in large part because of his opposition to President Donald Trump.) Why the straight party voting? On the Democratic side, it's partly a function of polarization, which has become even more pronounced since 1998. Yet even these days, there are still potential fault lines in both parties. There's where leadership can make a difference. As Dave Hopkins argues, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has done a very good job of keeping the Democratic caucus united. It's also partly an indication of how strong the case against Trump is. As for the Republicans, there's less to explain. Because Democrats won big in the 2018 midterm elections, there just aren't that many Republicans in competitive districts. So if we expect district opinion to be a major factor in how members vote, especially on a high-profile measure such as impeachment, we'd expect the bulk of potential defections to be on the Democratic side. There might also be one other factor: Lawmakers may have accepted the idea that what matters most to their re-elections is the president's popularity, rather than district opinion of their own actions. In other words, they may be betting that House elections have become so nationalized that it doesn't really matter what they do. If that's the case, then party-line votes may be designed to prop up (for Republicans) or bring down (for Democrats) the president's approval ratings. This is indeed a rare case where voters may be paying attention to what Congress does, and so that calculus may be correct. I do worry about it, though. The more that lawmakers think what they personally do is irrelevant because all that matters is how the party is doing, the less incentive they'll have to prudently represent their districts. And the case for the entire U.S. political system — for a strong, transformative Congress; for single-member districts; for separated institutions sharing powers — rests largely on the assumption that ambitious politicians will try hard to keep their constituents happy. If they lose interest in doing so, they create a major disconnect between government and voters. In other words, I'm saying that "Fenno's paradox," in which voters tend to hate Congress but like their own lawmakers, is probably a lot healthier than a situation where voters evaluate both their representatives and the broader legislature based only on partisanship. Even more important is that those in Congress believe, rightly or wrongly, that they hold their electoral fate in their own hands. If that belief is slipping away, it's a real problem. 1. Michael Tesler at the Monkey Cage on why public opinion hasn't changed throughout the impeachment process. 2. Julie Novkov at A House Divided on the latest development in U.S. citizenship. 3. Brianne Pfannenstiel on what it will mean to "win" the Iowa caucuses this time, and why it's more complicated than usual. 4. Jared Bernstein on the new North America trade deal. 5. More from Julian Sanchez about what the FBI did wrong in pursuing court permission to monitor the former Trump campaign staffer Carter Page. No, they weren't out to get Trump. But it might be worse than that, and it demands some serious reforms. 6. And a team at Just Security argues that the articles of impeachment point to several federal crimes Trump may have committed. Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You'll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close. | 
Post a Comment