94
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

The public has increasingly soured on Congress — and now, some House lawmakers are starting to agree.

With legislating all but brought to a halt and partisanship at an alarming high, members of Congress in both parties are running for the exits, opting out of another term on Capitol Hill to vie for higher office or, in some cases, leave politics altogether.

It is a trend that skyrocketed in recent months — amid a tumultuous 10-week stretch on Capitol Hill — and one that is likely to continue through the end of this year, highlighting the challenges of navigating a polarized, and oftentimes chaotic, era of Congress.

“Right now, Washington, D.C. is broken,” Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) said in a statement when announcing that she would not run for reelection. “[I]t is hard to get anything done.”

all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TallonMetroid@lemmy.world 83 points 8 months ago

“Right now, Washington, D.C. is broken,” Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) said in a statement when announcing that she would not run for reelection. “[I]t is hard to get anything done.”

And whose fault is that?

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 86 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Newt Gingrich

Steve Bannon

Rupert Murdoch

Lee Atwater

Karl Rove

David Koch

Charles Koch

The organized and funded the Republican Party to disfunction this way.

[-] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 8 months ago

And all the rubes who followed them.

[-] ares35@kbin.social 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

.. all the media 'personalities' that pump their agenda and fan the fire of hate.

[-] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 12 points 8 months ago

You forgot to mention the 'greatest' of them all: Mitch McConnell.

[-] noahm@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

My goodness, Dennis Hastert doesn't even make the list?

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

What's amazing is that the party of Newt - who actively worked to divide America, explicitly, then cried about how "divisive" Obama was when he showed up. Because he was Black. And they do the same for Biden. Because he was basically tasked with fixing the mess that Republicans made (like Democrats always are).

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 38 points 8 months ago

To be replaced by worse people who will break it even more.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Who knew that the best choice always being the lesser evil could lead to candidates becoming increasingly evil over time?

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 28 points 8 months ago

Thirty House members — 19 Democrats and 11 Republicans — have announced that they will not seek reelection next year, covering a wide range of congressional seniority, post-House plans and reasons for jumping ship. Sixteen are retiring from public office, 11 are running for seats in the Senate, and three are eyeing other government positions.

Seems like a dramaticized headline

[-] Jah348@lemm.ee 10 points 8 months ago

I wonder what the change in rate is. How many members generally do not run for relection and is this a significant increase or is it even a decrease.

Meaningless article.

[-] kick_out_the_jams@kbin.social 6 points 8 months ago

FTA

The number of House members opting against reelection in 2024 is not necessarily unusual — 49 tapped out in 2022 and 36 in 2020. But unlike past cycles, when the exiting lawmakers have tended to tilt heavily toward one party or the other, depending on the moment’s political winds, the current departures are coming from both parties in a cycle when control of the House is up for grabs.

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 months ago

Of course it is. If they reported it in a factual manner, they wouldn't be able to stoke fear.

[-] Lon3star@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago

Stop surrendering to the crazy...

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 19 points 8 months ago

Frustrated lawmakers run for the exits: ‘DC is broken’

What do you expect when you campaign on the premise that our government is broken, and when elected you do your best to break it?

[-] twisted28@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago

Stuff their pockets, screw over working class and flee. Sounds like a politician.

[-] seaQueue@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Yeah, honestly this just seems like the smart ones getting out now that labor is organizing again and consequences for corruption aren't unthinkable.

[-] xerazal@lemmy.zip 12 points 8 months ago

You're the fuckers that broke it. Now you're trying to get outta dodge to avoid the blowback? Fuck off.

[-] Fades@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

the kleptocractic fascists and the out of control capitalists broke it on purpose.

[-] CalicoJack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 8 months ago

It's textbook destabilization. We just aren't used to seeing them use the tactics at home.

[-] knobbysideup@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

"politician" should not be a career.

[-] Monkeyhog@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

No. It definitely should be a career. I for one prefer political experts to do their jobs instead of random millionaires who buy their way in on a lark because they're bored. I want my lawyers to be career lawyers, my doctors to be career doctors and my politicians to also know what the duck they're doing and be career politicians. It's ridiculous how politics is the only important job where people want amateurs.

[-] knobbysideup@lemm.ee -2 points 8 months ago

Political experts are making policy decisions about things they are not knowledgeable, let alone experts in. This is a problem. Healthcare, privacy, infrastructure, defense, right to repair, isp monopolies, etc. I don't want actors. I don't want celebrities. I don't want career politicians. I want people who actually understand problems working in government to get those problems solved for a brief time, not in place of being engineers, scientists, educators, and tradesmen.

[-] Monkeyhog@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

I want people who understand government working in government. Because government itself is complex and requires experts to run it correctly.

[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago

I would prefer an engineer make engineering decisions, a doctor make medical decisions, and a teacher make education decisions and not someone who’s good at playing the government game.

[-] knobbysideup@lemm.ee -4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Our founding founders were first architects, engineers, scientists, and inventors. The government being complex is a result of who is running it. Lawyers and politicians. Want a new law? Repeal 2 others.

[-] noahm@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Want a new law? Repeal 2 others.

Mindless platitudes like this accomplish nothing but to trivialize the legitimate complexity of the large scale organization.

[-] soloner@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago
[-] kbal@fedia.io 0 points 8 months ago
[-] Neato@kbin.social 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Absolutely fucking not. Random assignment is ridiculous. All it'd take is one or two bad assignments with crackpots to ruin the country forever. Imagine if enough Trumpers got assigned by chance. We'd have a dictator the next day.

Not to mention no one would ever trust if their methods were accurate as everyone would call foul.

And with people who are mostly not wealthy and only serve a single term the ability to totally bribe would be a foregone conclusion.

[-] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago

Absolutely fucking not. Random assignment is ridiculous.

Don’t we basically use this process for juries?

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 2 points 8 months ago

Even that's not purely random. Voir dire is a process to ensure the jury is selected intentionally by prosecution and defense attorneys (ideally to have an unbiased and effective jury).

[-] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago

Granted, but it’s miles away from having professional narcissists who campaign and accept lobbying money to be full time jurors for 30 years.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 3 points 8 months ago

There's lots of problems with the current system, I agree, but unless we can have a body of people who can act as national fiduciaries to "voir dire" the randomly selected politicians, I don't see how it would offer any improvements over the current system.

It would get money out of the initial political process, but it wouldn't necessarily create substantively better lawmakers.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 2 points 8 months ago

It would come with a different set of problems, but they don't seem any more difficult than those we already have. Not that it matters today, it's perhaps more of a concern for some future society that has the courage to devote itself to democracy.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago

...it's perhaps more of a concern for some future society that has the courage to devote itself to democracy.

Oh. You're one of those people. Nobody here is interested in your accelerationist bullshit.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 1 points 8 months ago

I'm just a passing pleb who apparently wandered into the angry part of lemmy. Sorry to intrude.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 3 points 8 months ago

If I mischaracterized you, then I apologize, but accelerationists and naive anarcho-libertarians have been trolling Politics with points exactly like yours for weeks. They think allowing fascism to happen now is the only (or at least inevitable) solution, and they imagine some future revolution will allow a better society to rise from the ashes, some "future democracy" for those "courageous enough" to make some kind of ideological stand now.

Nevermind they have no plan to get there except "burn it all down," and there's no way to know with any level of certainly what comes after that.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Oh right. I just meant it's a pretty far-out idea and not really relevant to practical politics right now, interesting though it may be. Thanks for the explanation.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 0 points 8 months ago

Again, apologies. Hope you have a lovely day.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

He said nothing about allowing fascism to happen now, though.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

People who support an unsustainable status quo tend to interpret all discontent as support for the worst outcome.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 0 points 8 months ago

The bad-faith commentors rarely do, until pressed. This one appears to have been commenting in good faith, however.

[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago

I like sortition, and I appreciate you bringing it up. If a position has so much power a random person could screw things up that bad, that position of power needs eliminated or divided.

[-] noahm@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

It's a perfectly reasonable career. The fact that you're even saying this just shows how successful the American right's undermining of the government has been.

Hiring non-profesionals for a job is not a recipe for successful execution of that job's responsibilities.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Yes, this. I want to see the people decrying expertise in governance sign up with a non-expert to have their teeth drilled.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago
this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
94 points (90.5% liked)

politics

18601 readers
4288 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS