sincere question: what do you regard as the "golden age" of political discourse in Congress ?

[steve2470]

I've heard about Tip O'Neill and...I forget the Republican counterpart, back in the early 1980's. Even though we disagreed strongly with the Republicans, somehow things got done and it wasn't so freaking toxic. Compromises were forged. Yes, I would love to have a 1933-style Congress where we have iron-clad majorities in both houses but that seems to be the exception to the rule.

Opinions ?

[Volaris]

1. 1960 to Newt Gingrich.

A lot of good legislation got passed, by presidents of BOTH parties.
When Newt took the House, he utterly blew up congressional norms because he thought (wrongly) that he had a mandate to be a dick to the democratic minority AND their president, just because he won.

[stillcool]

2. +1

[calguy]

3. Yup. Gingrich screwed it up forever

[bottomofthehill]

4. Speaker O'Neill was friends but political adversaries

With Republican Leaders Jerry Ford and then Bob Michael. In the Senate the Republican leaders were Howard Baker and Bob Dole. They were willing to do what was best for the good of the nation, not just the good of the Republican Party.

[bottomofthehill]

5. There were a lot of tough fights then

Speaker ONeill did not win them all, there were wins on some like social security, losses on Star Wars and compromises on taxes and debt

[sinkingfeeling]

6. 1950s until Nixon.

[Volaris]

8. Nixon passed the clean air and water act. And from a diplomatic standpoint,

He opened china to us, downgrading a sworn enemy to merely an economic rival.
And Reagan, for all his other issues, decided that cutting a deal with the soviet union was better than nuclear annihilation, and in so doing helped collapse that world power.

[JonLP24]

7. I read Gingrich is a cause for a lot of the problems we have today

So I would have to say sometime before Gingrich.

[Wanderlust988]

9. Gerrymandering and the lack of pork spending has lots to do with it too

It used to be you could get politicians on board with a bill or something if you threw them a bridge in their district or something. They've taken that away now and it's given less incentive for people to work for a compromise. I think they should bring back earmarks. They're not pleasant, but they work. And that's for both Dems and the GOP. You'd be surprised at how much a bridge in a town gets things done.

And gerrymandering has made the districts either solid red or blue and the reps don't care what the other side thinks cause they don't need them to win re-election.