Comment by dartos
2 years ago
In the US, at least, a new generation of congresspeople may not go by that same playbook.
We’re still dealing with most of the same politicians that were there in the late 80s. The anti-labor, pro-corporatist congress, if you will.
Maybe it’ll always be the same, but as the congress demographics changes, appeals to history don’t seem as strong.
> We’re still dealing with most of the same politicians that were there in the late 80s.
Factually, no we aren't; the average tenure of serving members in each House of Congress is under 10 years. It would have to be close to double what it is, even if everyone else was sworn in today, if we were dealing with most of the same members as even the very end of the 1980s.
EDIT: I suspect this impression comes from the fact that outliers both are more likely to be in leadership and, independent of leadership, get more media attention because they are outliers, as well as because they have had more time to build up their own media operations and to have opposing media build up a narrative around them.
My understanding of how US congress works is that you have to serve for decades in order to land the most influential positions - chair of various committees etc.
If you've served less than ten years your impact is likely limited. The politicians who have the most influence are the ones who have been there the longest.
> My understanding of how US congress works is that you have to serve for decades in order to land the most influential positions -
The current Speaker of the House, the highest ranking position in Congress and the second in line of Presidential succession, has been in Congress for 6 years.
Except for the President Pro Tem of the Senate, which traditionally goes to the longest-serving member of the majority party, most positions of authority or influence just require the support of either the majority or minority party caucus; longevity is correlated with that, but not a requirement in itself.
2 replies →