In the mid-1850s, a lesser known political party called the American Party, commonly known as the Know Nothing movement, operated at the national level. Members of the Know Nothing movement were to reply “I know nothing” with regards to the specifics of their platform. Today, a similar political party remains at-large. It is called the Do Nothing party; a party that is silent about the long-term sustainability of administrative delegations and financial security.

The Do Nothing party is, in essence, a uniparty that consists of Republicans and Democrats. What unites these two factions is their unwillingness to compromise with the opposition and their willingness to spend the United States into financial ruin. Some would argue that partisan polarization is good for the economy, because it keeps the government from interfering; others would argue that just the opposite is true.

Our system allows politicians to avoid accountability and this is part of the problem.

True across ideological lines is the proposition that elected politicians should act according to their constituents’ interests. There would be little purpose to voting if politicians did not act according to their constituents’ interests. Our system allows politicians to avoid accountability and this is part of the problem.

Senator Ben Sasse eloquently said during the Justice Brett Kavanaugh hearings, “The legislative branch is supposed to be the center of politics. Why isn’t it? For the past century, more legislative authority has been delegated to the executive branch every year. Both parties do it.” As the Senator from Nebraska points out, part of the problem is Congress writing blank checks to administrative agencies to “promulgate rules that do the rest of our jobs.” This largely explains why the fight for the presidency has become a bloodbath every four years.

The original intent of the Legislative Branch, Congress, was to represent constituents in the House of Representatives and the Senate. With Congress doling out their responsibilities to the civil servants in the Executive Branch, Congress can “avoid responsibility for controversial and unpopular decision[s].”

The most notable example is Congress’ inaction on comprehensive immigration reform. Even U.S. District Court Judge Dolly Gee has written, “It is apparent that Defendants’ Application is a cynical attempt…to shift responsibility to the Judiciary for over 20 years of Congressional inaction and ill-considered executive action that have led to the current stalemate.” Judge Gee was referencing the Trump Administration’s request to prevent family separations at migrant detention facilities. Obviously, it would make more sense for advocates of democracy to pressure the Congress to reinstate its role over legislating. Instead, we are told that the only way to enact preferred legislation is through electing more Republicans or Democrats, who in turn promise to change parliamentary rules to jam through partisan legislation.

As Congress has come to a standstill during the first year of a divided government, it is apparent that the Do Nothings have become more dominant. As Ms. Butchireddygari writes, an infrastructure deal fell apart when the “president said he wouldn’t work with Democrats while the Congressional Russia investigations continue.” Remarkably, the President is “still committed to getting an infrastructure measure turned into law,” but he refuses to do so until Congressional Democrats halt investigations. For better or worse, the President is caught up in this “my way or the highway” mentality present in Washington.

While legislative punting to the Executive Branch has eased the Congress’ job, another critical issue is the lack of term limits for members of Congress. Senators are elected every six years, while members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years. In theory, this system should hold elected officials accountable; however, it is reliant on a well-informed public. According to a January 2019 Congressional Research Service report, the “average years of service of Members in both chambers has generally increased over time.” The report identifies potential factors increasing the Member seniority:

Rate of members seeking reelection (increasing)

Reelection success rate (increasing)

Increased number of terms served and higher reelection success rates are not inherently problematic so long as the members of Congress are productive in enacting their constituents’ preferred policies. A general indicator for Congress’ success rate includes the number of enacted laws. The number of enacted laws may overlook the quantity of substantive or high-impact laws, but this indicator gives us a sense of how productive Congress has been. The results for the 116th Congress from January 3rd until the present is appalling.

As of September 3rd 2019, Congress has enacted a meager 56 laws or about 1 percent of the total 7,715 proposals. To put this into perspective, between 1977–2006 past Congresses have enacted between 4–7 percent of all laws proposed. Some readers may consider this lack of government action to be positive. However, when an individual is hired, or elected, to do a specific job or task this becomes problematic.

As Congress has relieved itself of responsibilities, the Judiciary has suffered. If Justice Brett Kavanugh’s hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee are any indicator, then the Judiciary has absolutely been tainted by partisan politics.

It is no wonder that the broader American public has little faith in the Congress; Congress cannot even agree on a budget, its “one major constitutional duty.” The power, or lack thereof, of the Do Nothings has much wider reach than one could imagine. As Congress has relieved itself of responsibilities, the Judiciary has suffered. If Justice Brett Kavanugh’s hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee are any indicator, then the Judiciary has absolutely been tainted by partisan politics. In 2012, NPR published a piece titled, “Robert Bork’s Supreme Court Nomination ‘Changed Everything, Maybe Forever.’’’ In a bid to push public opinion against the confirmation of Robert Bork, Senator Edward Kennedy gave a speech decrying: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution.”

While it is hyperbole to say that the nomination changed everything forever, Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog is correct in pointing out how the “borking,” a term “which meant to destroy a nominee by whatever means necessary,” of the Republican nominee has changed the nature of judicial confirmation hearings. As Goldstein states, “Republicans nominated this brilliant guy to move the law in this dramatically more conservative direction. Liberal groups turned around and blocked him precisely because of those views.”

In an ironically hypocritical friend-of-the-court brief, five Senate Democrats accused the Supreme Court of being “not well.” Their brief continues, “[p]erhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.”

The reality, as Goldstein notes, is that judicial confirmation hearings are part of a “ridiculous system now where nominees shut up and don’t say anything that might signal what they really think.” Essentially, Congressional partisan politics has forced judicial nominees to weigh in on political positions rather than legal questions over jurisprudence.

In an ironically hypocritical friend-of-the-court brief, five Senate Democrats accused the Supreme Court of being “not well.” Their brief continues, “[p]erhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.” No wonder a sizable proportion of Americans now believe that many judges are, in essence, merely “politicians in robes.” As Joe Nocera writes at The New York Times, “the anger between Democrats and Republicans, the unwillingness to work together, the profound mistrust — the line from Bork to today’s ugly politics is a straight one.”

Politicians can be and are blamed for a whole host of problems. Voters should also use this time to question the degree to which they may or may not contribute to this polarization. It would beseech the American public to understand how the United States went from electing “career politicians” to electing those without a lifetime of public service.

While some readers may strongly dislike either Presidents Obama or Trump, it is likely that both men became president for similar reasons. Then candidate Barack Obama’s message of “Hope and Change” inspired his supporters, while then candidate Donald Trump’s message of “Make America Great Again” appealed to his supporters. It is important to note that a significant portion of Barack Obama voters also voted for Donald Trump. The underlying ethos in both presidents’ messages is that: America is fundamentally broken and that I am the only one who can fix it.

So it is no surprise that these two different but fundamentally similar messages rode a wave of popularity following the Great Recession. Americans of all political affiliations viewed the Great Recession as the failings of their elected officials and Wall Street. The average American voter has demonstrated that they are no longer willing to accept empty promises. As Larry Schweikart writes, “Once the House ceded its most fundamental responsibilities, it was inevitable that those duties would be done by the Executive.” While our institutions remain standing but weakened, it is up to Congress to reclaim its rightful role and renew its dedication to its constituents and, ultimately, to American ideals.